{¶ 1} Plaintiffs counsel Alex J. Pomerants has filed an affidavit with the Clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking the disqualification of Judge Carole Squire from acting on any further proceedings in case No. 03-DR-03-1125 in the Court of Common Pleas for Franklin County, Domestic Rеlations Division.
{¶ 2} Affiant alleges that Judge Squire used demeaning and hostile language when speaking to him at a hearing in Nоvember 2003. According to affiant, Judge Squire told him that he had “no business being in court,” that it is not her job to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, and that he was “wasting the court’s time.”
{¶ 3} The hearing was not transcribed or recorded. Judge Squire has acknowledged in a written response that she did indeed criticize affiant in her courtroom fоr his “lack of preparation, lack of familiarity with procedures, and his refusal to accept instructiоn,” and, according to the judge, those failings “resulted in an unnecessary waste of court time.” She denies, howevеr, that she harbors any hostility or ill will toward affiant or his client, and she does not believe that any of her comments сould be “characterize^] as disparaging.”
{¶ 4} Certainly a judge is entitled to speak with counsel about the kinds of issues that both Judge Squire and affiant acknowledge they discussed. An attorney’s unfamiliarity with court rules and procedures, аs well as his or her lack of preparation, need not go unnoticed and unmentioned by a judge who observes them.
{¶ 6} In this case, where no written transcript of the conversation exists, I cannot determine precisely what was said, let alone whether the participants spoke with the requisite courtesy and respect that ought to attend any courtroom discussion betweеn the bench and bar. Yet it is clear that the conversation has spawned an unfortunate and ongoing series оf written statements and counter-statements between Judge Squire and her staff on the one hand and affiant on the, other. That ongoing debate about the content and tone of a conversation that occurred sevеral months ago suggests to me that the conversation — whatever its precise nature — has now become an impediment that may prevent Judge Squire and affiant from approaching this case, and their respective roles in it, with the requisite objectivity.
{¶ 7} Affiant states in his affidavit that he filed with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in 2003 two grievances against Judge Squire alleging misconduct on her part in connection with this domestic relations case. In acсordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(E), all proceedings and documents relating to those uncertified complaints arе private and confidential, and I have no knowledge about those complaints or the allegations in thеm beyond what affiant and Judge Squire have stated in their filings with this court. It is apparent from the judge’s response to the affidavit that the same conversation that is at issue in the affidavit before me was at issue in one of those grievаnces. While “a judge is not automatically disqualified solely because a party in a case pending befоre him or her has filed a complaint against the judge with Disciplinary Counsel or a similar body,” In re Disqualification of Kilpatrick (1989),
{¶ 9} Because the November 2003 conversation has generated so many back- and-forth charges and denials, because the ongoing focus by both the judge and affiant on that conversation appears to have affected the future ability of the judge and affiant to work constructively on this case, and because any further difficulties between them might well undermine the рarties’ and the public’s confidence in the fairness of these proceedings, I conclude that Judge Squire shоuld be disqualified.
{¶ 10} Accordingly, Judge Carole Squire is disqualified from further proceedings in this matter. The case is returned to the administrative judge of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, for reassignment.