2017 Ohio 9427
Ohio2017Background
- Brian Ames filed an affidavit under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Richard D. Reinbold Jr. (a retired judge sitting by assignment) from a Portage County common pleas case alleging Open Meetings Act violations by the County Board of Commissioners.
- The Board is represented in the underlying case by Denise L. Smith, chief assistant prosecuting attorney.
- Ames had separately filed procedendo actions against Judge Reinbold in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court, claiming the judge had not ruled on motions in the common pleas case.
- Ames alleged Judge Reinbold was biased because Smith represented the judge in those procedendo matters.
- Judge Reinbold stated Smith previously represented him in her statutory role but had withdrawn from representing him in the remaining Supreme Court procedendo action before Ames filed the disqualification affidavit; the judge now represents himself.
- The court found no ongoing attorney-client relationship between Judge Reinbold and Smith at the time of the affidavit and no other record evidence of judicial bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a judge must be disqualified when a litigant's attorney is the judge's current counsel | Ames: Smith represents Reinbold in procedendo actions, so judge is biased in favor of Smith's client (the Board) | Reinbold: Smith withdrew and no ongoing attorney-client relationship existed when affidavit filed; he can fairly preside | Denial — no disqualification because no ongoing attorney-client relationship or other evidence of bias |
| Whether prior representation by prosecutor's office requires recusal | Ames: prior representation creates appearance of partiality | Reinbold: prior representation ended; prior representation alone is insufficient without ongoing relationship | Denial — past representation that has concluded does not mandate disqualification |
| Applicability of exceptions (hardship / necessity) to disqualification rule | Ames: (implicit) exceptions inapplicable where perceived bias exists | Reinbold: even if rule applies, exceptions exist and no need here because no current conflict | Not reached substantively; court relied on absence of ongoing relationship to deny disqualification |
| Whether parties can waive disqualification under Judicial Conduct rules | Ames: did not waive; sought disqualification | Reinbold: not applicable — no ongoing conflict to waive | Court noted waiver is possible but unnecessary here given no active attorney-client relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disqualification of Badger, 47 Ohio St.3d 604 (1989) (judge should recuse when a litigant is represented by the judge's own lawyer)
- In re Disqualification of Whitmore, 84 Ohio St.3d 1231 (1998) (prosecuting attorney's representation of a judge can require recusal when same attorney represents a litigant before that judge)
- In re Disqualification of Morgan, 74 Ohio St.3d 1223 (1990) (disqualification unnecessary absent an ongoing attorney-client relationship)
- In re Disqualification of DeWeese, 74 Ohio St.3d 1256 (1994) (denying disqualification where representation by prosecutor's office had concluded)