Ohio State Bar Association v. Jacob
150 Ohio St. 3d 162
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Harry J. Jacob III, admitted 1981, served as a Bedford Municipal Court judge until resigning in October 2014 after criminal convictions.
- In April 2014 a grand jury indicted Jacob on multiple counts; following a five-day bench trial the common pleas court convicted him of five misdemeanors: three counts of solicitation and two counts of falsification.
- The falsification arose from Jacob’s sua sponte amendment of a domestic-violence charge to disorderly conduct and signing a journal entry falsely indicating prosecutor approval.
- Jacob was sentenced to 60 days in jail, fines, two years’ probation, and home monitoring; the Eighth District affirmed his convictions on appeal.
- The Ohio State Bar Association filed disciplinary charges; Jacob stipulated to most allegations but disputed one (Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c)). A Board of Professional Conduct panel found violations of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2 and Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b), (d), and (h), and recommended a two-year suspension with the second year stayed.
- The Supreme Court accepted the board’s findings and sanction: two-year suspension, second year stayed on condition of no further misconduct; costs taxed to Jacob. Chief Justice O’Connor and Justice French dissented from the stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jacob’s conduct (soliciting prostitutes and falsifying a journal entry) violated judicial and professional rules | Jacob’s criminal conduct and false journal entry breached Judicial Cond. R. 1.2 and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), (c), (d), (h) | Admitted most misconduct but disputed that signing the entry was knowing dishonesty (claimed boilerplate/secretary error) | Court found violations of Jud.Cond.R.1.2 and Prof.Cond.R.8.4(b),(d),(h); agreed falsification was knowing and rejected Jacob’s boilerplate defense (supports 8.4(c) finding) |
| Whether Jacob knowingly falsified the journal entry in Holt’s case | Relator: entry was knowingly altered to show prosecutor authorization; Jacob’s signature shows intent to falsify | Jacob: he signed a wrong form left by his secretary and did not intend to misrepresent prosecutor consent | Court (and Eighth District) rejected Jacob’s claim; concluded he knowingly falsified the entry |
| Proper sanction for combined in-court misconduct and out-of-court criminal acts | Two-year suspension with second year stayed is appropriate given pattern, multiple offenses, and diminished judicial integrity | Jacob sought consideration of mitigation: resignation, good faith, prior clean record, rehabilitation, completion of criminal sentence | Court adopted board’s recommendation: two-year suspension with second year stayed on condition of no further misconduct |
| Whether to stay part of the suspension | Relator implicitly supported suspension but board recommended stay of second year given mitigation | Jacob argued mitigating factors justified more lenient treatment | Majority stayed second year conditioned on no further misconduct; two justices would have denied any stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 997 N.E.2d 500 (distinguishing separate violation analysis for judicial misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hale, 26 N.E.3d 785 (suspension where judge issued false journal entry but had long unblemished career)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, 819 N.E.2d 273 (suspension for multiple false entries and repeated misconduct; substantial suspension warranted)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Squire, 876 N.E.2d 933 (two-year suspension, second year stayed, for pervasive judicial misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Connor, 822 N.E.2d 1235 (principle that criminal conduct by attorneys/judges supports disciplinary action)