In Re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against O’Toole
141 Ohio St. 3d 355
| Ohio | 2014Background
- O’Toole, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1991, was the subject of a disciplinary action arising from her 2012 judicial campaign.
- A five-member judicial commission found that she violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) by misrepresenting incumbency during the campaign.
- She wore a badge reading ‘Judge, 11th District Court of Appeals’ and referred to herself as ‘Judge O’Toole’ during the campaign.
- Davis filed a grievance alleging false or misleading statements and misrepresentations in campaign materials and on a website.
- The panel found two counts of violation (Counts Two and Three) and dismissed Count One (misconduct under other subparts).
- The court ultimately severed part of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A), holding one violation proven and dismissing the other, and publicly reprimanded O’Toole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) as to false/misleading speech | O’Toole argues the rule is unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. | O’Toole contends the rule serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored. | Partially unconstitutional; severed the true-but-misleading prohibition. |
| Narrow tailoring and overbreadth of the rule | Rule overbroad, chilling truthful speech. | Rule narrowly tailored to protect judiciary integrity. | Rule narrowed by severance; remaining provision deemed constitutional. |
| Applicability to Counts Two and Three | Both counts rest on the broad language restricting truthful-but-misleading speech. | Counts reflect false statements and improper misrepresentation during campaign. | Count Three sustained; Count Two dismissed due to severance. |
| Sanctions—attorney fees | Sanctions excessive given the violations found. | Sanctions appropriate to deter future misconduct. | Affirmed in part; reversed as to Count Two; attorney-fee award reduced on dissent. |
| Misconduct findings as applied to badge | Badge claim was improper or insufficiently egregious. | Badge misrepresentation injured public confidence. | Count Three sustained; badge misuse constitutes misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Hartlage, 452 U.S. 45 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981) (breathing space for protected speech; falsehoods not protected)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (determines content-based restrictions require careful tailoring)
- Weaver v. Bonner, 309 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2002) (narrowly tailored speech restrictions limited to false statements)
- Chmura, 461 Mich. 517 (Mich. 2000) (restrictive rules must be narrow and protect legitimate speech)
- Butler v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Comm., 802 So.2d 207 (Ala. 2001) (narrowly construed to prohibit demonstrably false statements only)
- Alabama Judicial Inquiry Comm. v. Butler, 245 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001) (federal review of state judicial-canons for First Amendment protection)
- Weaver v. Bonner, 114 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (N.D. Ga. 2000) (chilling effect of broader ‘deceptive’ standard in campaign speech)