Shen v. Lam, 2015 Ohio 5667

Paul Minh Lam filed an affidavit under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Leslie Ghiz for alleged bias.
Lam's asserted grounds: (1) Judge Ghiz disqualified his co-counsel after an alleged improper judicial investigation; (2) Judge Ghiz filed a grievance against his primary counsel; and (3) Judge Ghiz met privately after a status conference with plaintiff’s counsel, who chairs the same county political party as the judge.
Judge Ghiz responded, stating she can remain fair and impartial, that she disqualified co-counsel and filed the grievance based on evidence of forum-shopping and potential attorney misconduct, and that the post-conference meeting concerned a personal, non-substantive matter.
The case has been pending since 2012; Judge Ghiz has overseen it since 2013. The judge’s disqualification of co-counsel was affirmed on appeal.
The grievance against Lam’s primary counsel was later dismissed; Judge Ghiz asserts she has no remaining issues with that attorney.
No evidence was presented that the alleged ex parte meeting addressed substantive matters in the pending case.

Issue	Lam's Argument	Judge Ghiz's Argument	Held
Whether lengthy proceedings and judge's prior involvement require disqualification	Long proceedings + alleged bias justify removal	No extraordinary circumstances shown despite long history; she can be impartial	Denied — length and involvement alone insufficient
Whether disqualification for allegedly improper independent investigation (co-counsel removal) is warranted	Disqualification of co-counsel resulted from improper judicial investigation and shows bias	Disqualification based on evidence of forum-shopping; appellate court affirmed	Denied — merits of the ruling not a basis for disqualification
Whether filing a grievance against Lam's primary counsel mandates recusal	Filing grievance shows prejudice and requires recusal	Filing was a duty based on evidence of potential misconduct; grievance later dismissed and no ongoing issue	Denied — filing a complaint does not, by itself, require recusal
Whether an alleged ex parte meeting with plaintiff's counsel requires disqualification	Private meeting after conference suggests improper ex parte contact on case matters	Meeting was about a personal, unrelated matter; no proof substantive case matters were discussed	Denied — no proof of substantive ex parte communication; appearance could have been better managed

In re Disqualification of Pepple, 47 Ohio St.3d 606 (court will not disqualify a judge after lengthy proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances)
In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1214 (affidavit of disqualification is not a vehicle to relitigate substantive or procedural rulings)
In re Disqualification of Belskis, 74 Ohio St.3d 1252 (a judge’s filing of a disciplinary complaint against an attorney does not automatically require recusal)
In re Disqualification of Lynch, 135 Ohio St.3d 1277 (objective observers would not find judge partial solely for filing a grievance she believed required by the Code)
In re Disqualification of Forsthoefel, 135 Ohio St.3d 1316 (ex parte communications require disqualification only if they address substantive matters in the pending case)
In re Disqualification of Calabrese, 100 Ohio St.3d 1224 (standard for disqualification based on ex parte communications)
In re Disqualification of Bryant, 117 Ohio St.3d 1251 (judges presumed able to set aside prior partisan interests when deciding cases)