Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell (1993), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension --
Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law --
Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice --
Failure to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary -- Failure to conduct self at all times in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity
and independence of the judiciary -- Failure to be
patient, dignified and courteous to lawyers.
(No. 93-1298 -- Submitted September 28, 1993 -- Decided
December 8, 1993.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-42.
On August 17, 1992, relator, Office of Disciplinary
Counsel, filed a six-count complaint alleging misconduct
against respondent, John H. Campbell of Akron, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0030184. Each count alleged a violation of DR
1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to
practice law). Violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice) were alleged as
to counts two through five. Counts two through six
additionally charged violations of Code of Judicial Conduct
Canons 1 (failure to uphold the integrity and independence of
the judiciary), 2(A) (failure to conduct self at all times in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and the
impartiality of the judiciary), and 3(A)(3) (failure to be
patient, dignified and courteous to lawyers). Respondent's
answer denied all these violations, as well as most of the
factual allegations underlying them. These charges were heard
by a panel of the Board of Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court on December 17, 1992 and February 4, 1993.
The alleged acts span the years 1978 through 1992, with
five of the counts arising from incidents in or after 1988,
while respondent was either a judge or judicial candidate.
Each count detailed unwelcome and offensive sexual remarks
and/or physical contact. In all but one instance, the

complainant was someone over whom respondent exercised
authority, either directly as an employer or as a judge before
whom the complainant was required to appear.
Count one related to an incident which occurred in 1978
while respondent was engaged in private practice and which
involved sexual overtures toward the mother of a client.
Respondent denied this incident had occurred.
Counts two through six are particularly relevant. Count
two recounted a 1988 incident involving an employee of
respondent's law firm. The complainant, who was less than two
months out of law school, was asked by respondent to accompany
him to the conference room to "fool around." Assuming that it
was respondent's way of telling her to review some of the
paperwork being worked on there, she followed him.
According to complainant, once she entered the room,
respondent immediately closed the door and extinguished the
lights. Respondent proceeded to forcibly kiss and fondle
complainant, stopping only as footsteps approached.
Complainant testified she was so distraught that, despite
respondent's apology, she never returned to the office.
Respondent acknowledged the kiss only, and claimed it was
consensual. Despite his characterization, however, respondent
conceded that complainant quit because of the incident.
Counts four and six concerned remarks made in 1989 and
1992, respectively, to two female assistant prosecutors newly
assigned to his courtroom. The complainant in Count four stated
that respondent twice told her that the procedure to be
followed in complainant's welfare fraud prosecutions depended
on whether complainant "want[ed] to be [his] lover or not." In
Count six, a different prosecutor testified that five days
after her assignment, her statement that she was "ready to go"
with the day's docket prompted respondent to reply, "just tell
me when and where." When complainant responded that she was
referring to the day's business, respondent said that "when a
young woman tells me she's ready, I'm ready to go."
Both women testified that the comments had a sexual
connotation and were accompanied by a "smirk" or "leer." They
characterized the remarks as unwelcome and offensive, prompting
them to avoid respondent's courtroom thereafter.
Respondent denied the allegations in Count four. He
admitted only the first remark in Count six. Respondent's
eventual apology to the complainant in Count six was offered
only after other similar allegations against him surfaced
publicly.
Counts three and five, unlike the others, involve multiple
incidents of misconduct against the respective complainants.
Count five details actions directed at an attorney who
practiced before the respondent. In 1989, at complainant's
first appearance in respondent's courtroom, respondent ordered
the complainant to approach the bench and slowly turn around
before him so that he could "get a look at [her]." This
incident - - which was independently corroborated - - was
described by complainant as "embarrass[ing]" and
"inappropriate."
About four or five months later, complainant discovered a
picture of respondent's name on the marquee of a church, where
he had been a pastor, among photos of an accident site.

Thinking that respondent might enjoy the picture, she informed
respondent that she had "something that I think you'd like to
have." She testified that respondent replied, "[w]ell, honey,
anything you've got, I certainly want it."
Having already promised the photo, complainant later
stopped by respondent's office, hoping to merely leave the
picture and go. Respondent, however, instructed complainant to
enter the chambers and close the door. When given the picture,
complainant testified that respondent was "insistent" that he
somehow repay her. Respondent then repeatedly offered
complainant a kiss or hug, ignoring her protestations that such
conduct was inappropriate. At that point, respondent allegedly
leaned towards complainant and stated, "Oh, come on, Mrs. * *
*, you know what the score is." Complainant described
respondent's tone as "very intense. And it was very clear to
me at that point that this was not a joke, that this was
serious." Complainant ran from the room.
Thereafter, complainant's "stomach tie[d] up in knots"
whenever cases took her into respondent's courtroom. Her
ability to practice before him was adversely affected:
"* * * I felt like I was not being perceived as a
professional person, that I was perceived as an object. And it
took away from my credibility and my representation of my
clients in his court."
Respondent continued to make inappropriate comments on
complainant's attire even after the photo incident. At one
point, respondent expressed a desire to "connect the dots" on a
pair of patterned stockings to "see where it lead to."
Respondent denied all but the initial encounter and stated that
he never intended to degrade complainant.
Count five arose out of verbal and physical conduct
against the psychologist-director of the court's
Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic. What began in late 1988 as unwelcome
comments on complainant's appearance and marital status
escalated into uninvited and offensive physical contact on more
than one occasion. Respondent's advances culminated in an
April 24, 1990 encounter in which respondent physically blocked
the complainant's path and forcibly kissed and stroked her hair.
Respondent continued his unsolicited comments following
the April incident. His demeanor became hostile, however, when
complainant, before others, compared his behavior to that
alleged in the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings. Respondent
began openly questioning complainant's salary. Finally, in
December 1991, respondent sent a letter critical of
complainant's office to complainant and a copy to the court's
executive officer.
During the course of these events, complainant tried to
avoid doing psychological evaluations for respondent's
courtroom, feeling that she was not being taken seriously, to
the possible detriment of the defendants whom she evaluated.
She also feared for her job because she believed that she, as a
court employee, could be fired by respondent. She
characterized respondent's letter as retaliatory and an
"attemp[t] * * * to create an incident and unfairly criticize
my performance in my job."
Respondent denied that he did anything other than
compliment complainant on her looks, although he did recall the

Hill/Thomas exchange. He suggested that complainant's
allegations may have been spurred by his earlier failure to
support complainant's proposed improvements to the county's
diagnostic facilities. He denied having any ulterior motive
for his letter, despite the fact that the alleged reason for
the criticism proved baseless.
Addressing all the charges leveled, respondent denied any
offensive intent to those actions to which he did admit. He
stated that he now knew, however, that certain verbal
statements that he viewed as innocuous could have been
differently perceived by the recipient. In addition,
respondent presented a dozen character witnesses and over forty
reference letters and affidavits, all lauding respondent as an
exemplary judge and human being. Respondent requested
dismissal of the complaint or public reprimand.
The panel found that respondent had committed all the
violations alleged. The panel concluded:
"Despite the fact that in testimony presented on behalf of
Respondent, the Respondent's court has sought to be
characterized as functioning properly, it is apparent from the
uncontroverted testimony of many of the witnesses that his
continuing remarks made practicing before him or serving in a
professional capacity before him uncomfortable, unacceptable
and violative of the standards to which members of the
judiciary must adhere."
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. The board adopted
the findings and recommendation of the panel and also
recommended that the costs of the proceeding be charged to
respondent.
Respondent subsequently resigned from office.

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, Alvin E. Mathews and
Diana L. Chesley, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Donald S. Varian and Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.

Per Curiam. The Code of Professional Responsibility and
the Code of Judicial Conduct serve many purposes. Foremost
among them are to ensure a legal system of the highest caliber,
and to instill and maintain public confidence in that system.
Respondent's acts not only do not further these goals, but they
also undermine them. Such conduct would be unacceptable by any
member of society. We, however, find it particularly
intolerable by an attorney and abhorrent for a member of the
judiciary.
In all but one instance, respondent was either directly or
indirectly in a position of influence over the complainant.
Similarly, his actions were almost exclusively directed at
those most likely to be intimidated by his position. Four of
the victims, for example, were inexperienced attorneys engaged
in a new job early in their legal career.
Respondent's defense that he intended no harm is
contradicted by those instances in which his behavior continued
despite objections from the victim that his actions were
unwelcome and offensive. Similarly, respondent's claim that
none of the complainants had expressed problems with any of the
cases they had before respondent ignores the adverse effect his

actions had on the complainants' perception of their ability to
effectively practice before him. Accordingly, we concur in the
findings of the board and suspend respondent from the practice
of law for one year.
Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.