In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Moll, 985 N.E.2d 436

Moll, a candidate for the Fifth District Court of Appeals, was charged with multiple Canon 4 violations in a three-count complaint.
The panel found Moll violated certain provisions based on a campaign flyer depicting her in a judicial robe without current-office qualification.
The commission affirmed; sanctions included a $1,000 fine, costs, and $2,500 in attorney fees, with the fine potentially stayed for future compliance.
Moll appealed under Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(E), challenging the commission’s findings and sanctions.
The Supreme Court affirmed the commission, holding the record supported the violations and the sanctions were not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the record support Moll's Canon 4 violations?	Moll asserts no support for violations.	The commission found substantial evidence of Knowingly/Recklessly misleading conduct.	Yes; record supports violations of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A), (C), (F).
Was Moll’s appeal scope properly limited to sanctions?	Appeal challenges misconduct findings.	Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(E) permits review of sanctions and underlying misconduct.	Scope proper; review includes whether violations are supported.
Were the sanctions within the commission’s discretion?	Discretionary sanctions may be excessive or unfounded.	Discretion allowed to impose fines, costs, and attorney fees to deter misconduct.	Yes; sanctions not an abuse of discretion.

In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Lilly, 131 Ohio St.3d 1515 (2012-Ohio-1720) (robe-wearing image noncurrent-office misleads voters)
In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Michael, 132 Ohio St.3d 1469 (2012-Ohio-3187) (definition of knowingly and recklessly during campaigns)
In re Judicial Campaign Grievance Against O’Neill, 132 Ohio St.3d 1472 (2012-Ohio-3223) (limits of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(C) under different facts)
Miller v. Miller, 132 Ohio St.3d 424 (2012-Ohio-2928) (sanctions scope and discretion in disciplinary context)