*1 298
appellant, Lambert Dehler.
Mandamus
compel
performance of an
act
already
performed.
Kontos,
that has
State ex rel. Fontanella v.
117
¶
514,
because Dehler did not bring his mandamus case a class as action. ex Ogan rel. v. Teater 54 217, Ohio St.2d 8 O.O.3d (“Where, cause, as the instant suit party does bringing bring his cause of within 23, the provisions of Civ.R. is clear court may properly alone”). its limit that of holding to With party restriction, Dehler unable his mandamus claim was not moot, i.e., he failed to expectation subject reasonable that he would be the same action again. Heath, See State ex Enquirer rel. Cincinnati ¶ 11.
Judgment affirmed. Moyek, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Dehler,
Lambert Cordray, Attorney General, Richard Rutherford, and Ashley Dawn General, Attorney for appellee. Bunstine.
[Cite
tion No. was admitted *2 suspend that we recommends Discipline on Grievances of Commissioners months, the staying law for entire from the of six respondent practice is based The board’s recommendation the of no further misconduct. on condition prosecutor, a faded part-time serving that while findings respondent, on couple the son a who involving of from a criminal matter timely recuse himself had respondent of board concluded were friends his wife. The of in conduct administration prejudicial by engaging ethical standards issue, we no profession However, circumstances justice. given unique al misconduct. 2008, relator, alleged complaint In June a criminal matter stemming from professional
violations of misconduct for of Chillicothe. He was prosecutor city was with as a respondent involved of client (except with the consent charged with violations of DR of disclosure, lawyer the exercise employment after full shall reasonably may on of client will be or professional judgment interests) financial, business, property, lawyer’s affected (a is to the prejudicial shall not conduct that lawyer engage A of the board found that relator failed justice). panel administration DR 5- evidence that had violated found, however, 101(A)(1) be dismissed. It charge and recommended that The recommended had violated months, for six of law in Ohio suspended fact, panel’s findings six months The conclusions law, and recommended sanction. May several facts. Until was parties stipulated The of Chillicothe. In wife was part-time prosecutor city respondent’s
contacted that she knew from church. The indicated couple couple conduct and charged disorderly their adult son had been arrested and case, why arrest. At the the father was asked resisting ours, is a respondent’s wife had contacted wife. He testified: “She friend before[;] through system really been a court didn’t know how had never worked[;] just get our and so we wanted to some were concerned about work, through, would we could do things go ideas about how would what we what The were concerned problems.” our son who was some hoped he would receive that their son had mental-health issues for which counseling. initiative, her letter one of On own
{¶ son relayed parents’ court letter concern municipal judges. The harm and that he might undergo himself others would unless by the to do The past reflecting ordered court so. letter mentioned incidents state, the son’s mental which substantiated the believed counseling. typed closing Lynn need for The letter concluded with the “Ed and Bunstine,” but there was no signature. arraignment, respondent gave On the date letter to that assigned bailiff courtroom and then left to attend another A hearing.
notation the letter’s written envelope presumably by the bailiff—directs that — copy be made “for parties/attorneys.” Evidence establishes that all relevant indeed received that letter. copy delivered, At the time that prosecutor no yet had Later, however, defendant’s case. second, the case. He attended two pretrials, and respondent and defense *3 terms, counsel agreement. charges Under its against the defendant would if completed be dismissed he 16-week program. After plea agreement court, was accepted by recused himself from the He explained way: case. his decision this “When I to spoke parents] at the pretrial, [the and obtained consent
{¶ their 8} to I plea agreement, future, my told them if in needed if they problems son, continued to have with their to son continued suicidal, to house, feel a call give my free me I in and would-help any them I way regards could in the problems that they with their son. I “Once made that statement to the victims this case parents], [the felt creating that was a conflict at that time. That is the reason on the put that I *4 Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger,
Moyer, C.J., dissents.
Moyer, C.J., dissenting. did majority’s decision respectfully dissent part prosecution took not violate judge stating presiding letter to the delivering defendant after advocating parents of the defendant’s respondent and friends Although respondent’s on behalf of the specific defendant. letter, from him and wife. purported knew it to be letter, attended prosecute
delivering conference, he at the second prosecutor; conferences in his role as pretrial advocated position with defendant similar agreement plea agreement did accepted the court Only in the letter. after himself, recuse claiming that became due comments he had made to the defendant’s at that time. in his “If Respondent admits brief: the letter had been sent behalf of
defendant, agree then would the Board and I myself.” would have recused however, stipulated, has August “[o]n about Respon- * * * Judge dent’s wife wrote letter to Street on behalf [the defendant].” agree that the defendant, sent on board. Respondent’s failure to recuse himself as soon as the case was to him was violation DR 1— Based respondent’s misconduct and sanctions imposed similar
cases, a stayed suspension from
law is the appropriate sanction.
McNamee,
Disciplinary
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary
Hissom,
L.
Heather
for relator.
Edward R.
notes
wanted this case reset on another prosecutor’s date. Because if
week,
weeks,
parents]
weeks,
[the
had called me a
three
four weeks down the
Ed,
road
said
you
and
will
talk to our
will you come out to the house and
help, would
that.”
have done
(¶
Relator
asserted that
involvement with the
and
10}
failure to recuse himself earlier
both
violated
DR
and 5—
The panel agreed only that a violation of DR
was established and the
board,
turn,
panel’s
full.
report
objections
In
report.
inaccuracies,
board’s
addition to alleging some factual
objected
1-102(A)(5).
finding
board’s
that he had
DR
In
court,
argument before this
explained
he
that he
that it
duty
felt
was his ethical
present
Municipal
Chillicothe
that the
Court evidence
defendant could
danger
be a
to himself or others.
required
Because
another
verbally
court,
and could not
present this information
believed that the
timely
letter was a
effective alternative.
argued that his recusal was not
because it was
untimely,
not warranted until his
conversation,
he was
parents.
conversation with
immediately recused
therefore
that he had created a conflict and
concerned
himself.
matters,
of either
are not bound
conclusion
In
disciplinary
conduct or
determining
attorney’s
propriety
(2001), Ohio
v. Furth
Disciplinary Counsel
appropriate sanction.
us,
adopt
of the evidence before
219. Based
our review
N.E.2d
5-101(A)(1),
finding that
violate
the board’s
not, however,
adopt
finding
the board’s
of that
We do
charge.
its dismissal
conduct violated
the facts
convincing
must
evidence
Relator
V(6)(J);
R.
Rule.
a violation of a
Gov.Bar
to establish
308, 310,
(1998),