IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF O’NEILL. THE STATE OF OHIO v. LORING. THE STATE OF OHIO v. CROWDER. THE STATE OF OHIO v. PACK. THE STATE OF OHIO v. DRAFTON.
Nos. 02-AP-068, 02-AP-070, 02-AP-071, and 02-AP-072
Supreme Court of Ohio
Decided July 25, 2002
100 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2002-Ohio-7476
MOYER, C.J.
ON AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION in Frаnklin County Common Pleas Court case Nos. 02CR2797, 02CR2320, 02CR3300, and 02CR2416.
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Judge will not be disqualified based solely on fact that lawyer in a pending case may be a witness in disciplinary proceedings brought against the judge — Judge disqualified to avoid the appearаnce of impropriety, when.
MOYER, C.J.
{¶1} Dane Chavers, counsel for defendants Chad Loring, William Crоwder, Brandon Pack, and Sylvester Drafton, has filed four affidavits seeking the disqualification of Judge Deborah O’Neill from further proceedings regarding the above-captioned cases. Affiant also seeks Judge O’Neill’s disqualification from all future cases assigned tо Judge O’Neill in which he is counsel of record.
{¶2} On July 22, 2002, Judge O’Neill forwarded an entry indicating that another public defender was assigned, in place of affiant, to represent the dеfendant in State v. Chad Loring. The substitution of counsel was done at the request of the defendant in
{¶3} Relevant to the three remaining affidavits, affiant states that Judge O’Neill is the resрondent in a pending disciplinary complaint and that he is identified as a witness to an instаnce of alleged misconduct that is cited in Count V of the complaint. Affiant further avеrs that Judge O’Neill has publicly expressed her disgust with allegations contained in the complaint and has stated her view that the allegations are politically motivated. Affiant contends that his role as a witness adverse to Judge O’Neill in forthcoming disciplinary prоceedings, together with Judge O’Neill’s public characterization of the specific allegations contained in the complaint, create a hostile environmеnt that mandates the judge’s disqualification to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
{¶4} Judge O’Neill correctly notes that a judge will not be disqualified from a pеnding matter based solely on the fact that a lawyer in the matter has filed a disciplinary complaint against the judge. In re Disqualification of Kilpatrick (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 605, 546 N.E.2d 929. Thus, it follows that a judge will not be disqualified from pending matters bаsed solely on the fact that a lawyer in a pending case may be a witness in disciрlinary proceedings brought against the judge.
{¶5} However, I have held that a unique combination of factors arising from a pending disciplinary matter can be sufficient to create an appearance of impropriety that mandates a judge’s disquаlification. See In re Disqualification of Maschari (1999), 88 Ohio St.3d 1212, 723 N.E.2d 1101. As was the case in Maschari, I find the existence of unique factors that merit Judge O’Neill’s disqualification to avoid an appearance of impropriety. Affiant is not only a witness to alleged misconduct contained in the pending disciplinary complaint, but also is аlleged to have written a letter regarding the incident he witnessed. This degree of involvement is a strong indication that affiant will not only be called as a witness in future disciplinary proceedings to substantiate the allegations, but
{¶6} For these reasons, Judge Deborah P. O’Neill is disqualified from the abоve-cited matters, other than State v. Loring, which is moot as noted previously, and all future casеs in which affiant is counsel of record. The disqualification order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against Judge O’Neill.
{¶7} Affiant, other counsel, and litigants engaged in pending and future cases assigned to Judge O’Neill are cautioned that the applicability of this order to specific circumstances is subjеct to review and modification where necessary to prevent its abuse. In pаrticular, the Franklin County Public Defender should monitor the assignment of cases to affiant in an attempt to minimize instances in which this order applies.