Disciplinary Counsel v. Allen - 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

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL V. ALLEN.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Allen (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Judges -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Appearance by municipal
court judge on judge's bench in her courtroom in her judicial robes
with her name plate visible in a television commercial produced for
a law firm.

(No. 97-434 -- Submitted June 25, 1997 -- Decided October 1, 1997.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-97.

In 1995, producers of a television commercial for the law firm of Harmon,
Davis & Keys Co., L.P.A., asked respondent, Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judge Nadine Lovelace Allen of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No.
0026617, to sit on the judge's bench in her courtroom to add realism to a
television commercial being produced for the law firm. In the thirty-second
commercial, which was televised numerous times from June 26, 1995 through
August 14, 1995, respondent does not speak, but she does appear on the bench in
her judicial robes with her name plate visible during the last six seconds of the
production. During those six seconds, four persons, ostensibly members of the
law firm, approach one side of the bench and hand respondent a document, which
she appears to peruse while the four persons turn and look toward the camera with
pleasant expressions.

Neither the producers nor the law firm gave respondent an opportunity to
review the commercial before it appeared. After receiving an inquiry about the
commercial from relator, respondent immediately contacted the law firm and
asked that the television stations stop televising it. Respondent also immediately
recused herself from hearing any cases in which the law firm was involved.

Based upon these facts, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging that respondent's actions violated certain canons of the Code
of Judicial Conduct. After respondent answered, the matter was heard by a panel
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme
Court ("board"), which considered the testimony of respondent, viewed the
commercial, and received agreed stipulations. The panel concluded that
respondent's actions violated Canon 1 (a judge should herself observe high
standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary), 2
(a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all her
activities), and 2(B) (a judge should not lend the prestige of her office to advance
the private interests of others) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The panel
recommended that the respondent receive a public reprimand. The board adopted
the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________

J. Warren Bettis, Interim Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent.
__________________

Per Curiam. It is of utmost importance that the public have confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. For that reason, Canon 2(B) of the
Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge "should not lend the prestige of his
office to advance the private interests of others; nor should he convey or permit
others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him.
He should not testify voluntarily as a character witness."

2

By her actions, respondent did use the prestige of her office to advance the
private interests of others, namely a Cincinnati law firm. Her appearance had the
potential to lead viewers of the commercial to believe that the firm had a special
relationship with respondent. Because judges must not only avoid any
impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety, a judge must be constantly
aware of the potential for the public to misunderstand her actions.

In mitigation, we note that before the production of the commercial
respondent did not expect to appear in it, that she was called upon unexpectedly by
the producers, and that she made her decision to sit on the bench without sufficient
reflection about the situation in light of the canons relating to judicial conduct.
Moreover, we note that later, when the matter was brought to respondent's
attention, she reacted immediately and positively to ensure that the offending
commercial was no longer broadcast and to recuse herself from any cases
involving the law firm.

Having accepted the board's findings and conclusions, we adopt also its
recommendation, and respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to
respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., HANDWORK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.

DOUGLAS and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.

PETER M. HANDWORK, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for
RESNICK, J.

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. Because I believe respondent's actions
were the result of a spur-of-the-moment decision, intended simply to depict a
judge in a courtroom setting, and were not intended to lend the prestige of her
office to another's interest, I respectfully dissent and would dismiss the cause.

3