IN RE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN COMPLAINT AGAINST MOLL.
No. 2012-1186
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted October 23, 2012—Decided December 6, 2012.
[Cite as In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Moll, 135 Ohio St.3d 156, 2012-Ohio-5674.]
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Peter Galyardt, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jeanette M. Moll of Zanesville, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0066786, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1996. Moll was a candidate for Judge of the Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio for the six-year term beginning February 11, 2013.1 A five-member judicial commission appointed by this court concluded that the record supported the finding of a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that Moll had violated several provisions of Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Moll appeals. Moll also contests the commission‘s imposition of a cease-and-desist order, a $1,000 fine, attorney fees of $2,500, and costs as sanctions premised upon her violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. We agree with the commission that the finding of professional misconduct is supported by the record and affirm the sanctions imposed by the commission.
{¶ 2} The secretary of the board charged Moll in a three-count complaint with multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The panel of three board members held a hearing on the matter and made findings of fact and conclusions of law. The panel found that Moll had committed the violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct charged in the first count of the complaint, which related to her use of a campaign flyer, but dismissed the charges in the second and third counts because of the lack of clear and convincing proof. The panel recommended that the commission issue interim and permanent orders that Moll immediately and permanently cease using the campaign flyer specified in the first count. The panel also recommended that Moll be assessed a fine of $1,000 and the costs of the proceeding but that the fine be stayed on condition of no further violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct relating to judicial-campaign conduct.
{¶ 3} On July 31, 2012, the commission issued the recommended cease-and-desist order. 132 Ohio St.3d 1489, 2012-Ohio-3440, 971 N.E.2d 965. Both Moll and complainant filed objections to the panel‘s report. On August 30, 2012, the commission affirmed the hearing panel‘s finding that Moll had committed multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 132 Ohio St.3d 1505, 2012-Ohio-3952, 973 N.E.2d 273. The commission ordered Moll to pay a $1,000 fine and the costs of the proceeding and to pay complainant $2,500 in attorney fees. Id.
Analysis
Scope of Appeal
{¶ 5} In her appeal from the commission‘s sanctions, Moll argues that the commission erred in determining that the record supports the hearing panel‘s findings that she violated Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Complainant contends that the court cannot address this argument because it is outside the scope of this appeal.
{¶ 6} Under
{¶ 7} A determination of the propriety of the commission‘s holding that the record supports the hearing panel‘s finding and that no abuse of discretion occurred is permitted under
Finding of Misconduct—Campaign Materials Including Photograph of Judicial Candidate in a Robe without Specification that Candidate Is Not Currently a Judge or Magistrate
{¶ 8} The commission determined that the record supports the hearing panel‘s finding that Moll violated Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which precludes a judge or judicial candidate from engaging in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary. This case involves Moll‘s use of a campaign flyer that gave prospective voters the misleading impression that she was currently serving in an elected or appointed judicial office.
{¶ 9} On the front page of the flyer, below the heading entitled, “Jeanette Moll for Judge,” Moll is depicted in a photograph wearing a judicial robe. No text accompanies the photograph to indicate whether Moll was a current or former judge or magistrate. The back of the flyer lists bullet points for Moll‘s education and experience, including a notation of “Magistrate, Guernsey County,” without specifying whether she currently held that position or the dates she served in that position. Moll served as a magistrate for the Guernsey County Court of
{¶ 10} The commission agreed with the hearing panel that Moll‘s campaign flyer contained information that was either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard of whether it was false or, if true, that would be deceiving or misleading to a reasonable person, in violation of
{¶ 11} The commission did not err in determining that the record supports the hearing panel‘s determination that Moll‘s campaign flyer violated
{¶ 12} Moll was aware that it was possible that her campaign flyer could mislead or deceive a reasonable person that she currently serves as a judge or magistrate. Moll testified at the panel hearing that the campaign flyer was prepared with her personal knowledge and approval. She attended a judicial candidates seminar in 2011, and upon completion, she certified her understanding of the requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The seminar materials included the full text of
{¶ 14} As the commission determined, the board‘s conclusion that Moll violated
{¶ 15} Moreover, Moll‘s reliance on a judicial commission‘s 7-6 decision in In re Judicial Campaign Grievance Against O‘Neill, 132 Ohio St.3d 1472, 2012-Ohio-3223, 970 N.E.2d 973, to claim that
{¶ 16} Therefore, the commission correctly affirmed the hearing panel‘s finding that Moll violated
Sanction
{¶ 17} Moll next contends that the commission erred in imposing sanctions of a $1,000 fine, the costs of the proceeding, and $2,500 in attorney fees. Pursuant to
{¶ 18} The commission did not abuse its discretion in issuing the sanctions here. Unlike the case relied on by Moll, In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Keys, 80 Ohio Misc.2d 1, 671 N.E.2d 1124 (1996), to support her claim that any violation was unintentional, there was no unintentional use by a third party of Moll‘s name in the campaign flyer. Instead, there is clear and convincing evidence that Moll made and approved the flyer and that her violations of
{¶ 19} Nor do the remaining sanctions establish that the commission acted in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner. The primary purpose of these sanctions is to protect the public, and the imposition of fines, costs, and attorney fees acts as a deterrent against similar behavior by judicial candidates who may attempt to mislead or deceive prospective voters in the future. See Disciplinary Counsel v. O‘Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204, 2004-Ohio-4704, 815 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 53 (“the primary purpose of disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the offender, but to protect the public“); In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Per Due, 98 Ohio St.3d 1548, 2003-Ohio-2032, 787 N.E.2d 10 (“The purpose of sanctions is to inform other judicial candidates of the seriousness of such violations and to deter future similar misconduct. A sanction that may result in effective deterrence best serves the public interest and the profession“).
Conclusion
{¶ 20} Because the commission did not abuse its discretion in issuing sanctions against Moll for her violations of
Order affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
CUPP, J., not participating.
Jeanette M. Moll, pro se.