Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Evans, 999 N.E.2d 674

Judge Evans, admitted in 1972, serves in Gallia County Court of Common Pleas and faced misconduct charges for failing to disqualify himself amid a conflict with defense counsel.
Relator Ohio State Bar Association and the parties settled on a consent-to-discipline path; board initially rejected and remanded for a hearing.
On remand, the parties waived a hearing, submitted stipulations, and jointly recommended a stayed six-month suspension, which the board accepted.
Judge Evans issued rulings removing Bright as counsel in numerous cases, asserting a conflict and directing Bright be relieved of further responsibility.
Bright’s removal led to his termination by the Gallia County public defender and raised privacy concerns under Gov.Bar R. V(11)(E); the disciplinary process was kept confidential until probable cause or certification.
The panel and court found violations of Jud.Cond.R. 2.11 and Gov.Bar R. V(11)(E); Count III was dismissed; the court imposed a fully stayed one-year suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Evans violate Jud.Cond.R. 2.11 and Gov.Bar R. V(11)(E)?	Evans created a personal conflict and removed Bright instead of disqualifying himself.	Conflict with Bright necessitated removal to protect impartiality; actions were appropriate given the circumstances.	Yes; Evans violated the rules and undermined impartiality.
Did Evans’s removal of Bright harm Bright and his clients?	Removal caused harm to Bright and potentially to his clients who did not request removal.	Removal was a necessary response to an irreconcilable conflict; no undue harm to others intended.	Yes; misconduct caused concrete harm to Bright and clients.
Is a six-month stayed suspension an adequate sanction?	Board’s recommended six-month stay was appropriate given misconduct.	The stay should reflect lesser severity due to circumstances and precedent.	No; midrange sanction was too lenient; a longer stay was warranted.
What is the appropriate sanction in light of aggravating and mitigating factors?	Aggravating factor of harm plus multiple offenses justify a stricter sanction; relied on precedent to justify a longer stay.	Mitigating factors reduce culpability; a six-month stay was reasonable under the circumstances.	Yes; imposing a stayed one-year suspension is appropriate.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Gaul, 127 Ohio St.3d 16 (2010-Ohio-4831) (stayed six-month suspension for prejudicial remarks and media involvement)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Elum, 133 Ohio St.3d 500 (2012-Ohio-4700) (stayed six-month suspension for undignified conduct toward litigants and partiality)
Disciplinary Counsel v. McCormack, 133 Ohio St.3d 192 (2012-Ohio-4309) (stayed one-year suspension for magistrate's misconduct in a single case)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell, 126 Ohio St.3d 150 (2010-Ohio-3265) (one-year suspension with six months stayed for multiple and repeated ethical violations)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Russo, 124 Ohio St.3d 437 (2010-Ohio-605) (stayed one-year suspension where harsher sanction warranted due to harm)