Disciplinary Counsel v. Kiacz - 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

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Kiacz, 94 Ohio St.3d 409, 2002-Ohio-1048.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KIACZ, JUDGE.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Kiacz (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 409.]
Judges -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Meeting with State Highway
Patrol officers and asking officers to keep number of traffic tickets level
so court costs would not need to be raised.
(No. 01-1827 -- Submitted December 12, 2001 -- Decided February 27, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-49.
__________________

Per Curiam. In May 1998, George Issac, a member of the citizen's
committee overseeing the construction of a new municipal building in Bryan,
Ohio, asked respondent, Joseph Robert Kiacz, the judge of the Bryan Municipal
Court, Attorney Registration No. 0003337, whether the court was generating
sufficient revenue so that the city would not have to contribute to the court's
operating budget but could devote its funds to the new building. Respondent
replied that the court was financially self-sufficient.

A year later, in May 1999, after the planning for the municipal building
construction had begun, the Clerk of the Bryan Municipal Court told respondent
that the number of traffic citations issued by the local State Highway Patrol post
had dropped substantially in March and April 1999. Respondent met with
officers of the local post of the State Highway Patrol and asked whether they
knew the reason for the drop in citations. Although the number of citations issued
by the patrol in June 1999 was higher than in previous months, it continued to
decline in July, August, and September. In November 1999, respondent met with
a senior officer of the State Highway Patrol and asked for an explanation for the
drop in tickets and complained about the attitude of one of the junior officers he

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
met with in May. Respondent also discussed with the senior officer the need for
the municipal court to be financially self-sufficient.

Shortly thereafter, also in November 1999, certain junior officers of the
State Highway Patrol post met with respondent in a followup meeting.
Respondent discussed the need to keep court revenues level and asked the officers
to keep the number of traffic tickets level so that he would not have to raise court
costs.

The Highway Patrol did not change its actions as a result of these
meetings, and these meetings had no influence on respondent's adjudication of
any case.

On June 5, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint
charging that respondent's actions violated several provisions of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent
answered and the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners
on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court.

Based on the stipulations of the parties, the panel found the facts as stated
above and concluded that respondent's conduct violated Canon 1 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct (a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the
judiciary) and Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (a judge shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities).

The panel found "compelling" the statements of numerous character
witnesses who described respondent as a caring, intelligent, fair judge who is
deeply involved in his community and who possesses high integrity and respect
for the judicial system. The panel therefore recommended that respondent receive
a public reprimand. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the panel.
2

January Term, 2002

We have reviewed the entire record and adopt the findings, conclusions,
and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.
Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Elizabeth
McCord and George Jonson, for respondent.
__________________
3