Summary
In Capers, it was found that the judge's error was due to confusion and carelessness, rather than misrepresentation and, thus, there was no violation on that count.
Summary of this case from Ohio State Bar Assn. v. ReidOpinion
D.D. No. 84-4
Decided December 31, 1984.
Judges — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Endorsement of candidate for public office — Filing of erroneous docket reports.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Judiciary.
On April 4, 1983, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, relator, filed this action against Judge Jean Murrell Capers with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Judiciary. The complaint alleged violations of the oath of office, Canon 7A(1)(b) and Canon 3A(5) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and DR 1-102(A)(1), (4), (5) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These allegations stem from two unrelated actions by respondent: the endorsement of a candidate for public office, and the filing of erroneous docket reports.
On May 25, 1983, respondent having failed to answer, a panel was assigned to hear the cause. Respondent then filed an answer on August 1, 1983. In accordance with Gov. Jud. R. II, the case was transferred to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Judiciary ("board").
At all times relevant herein, respondent has been, and is now, an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Ohio, and a judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court.
Prior to the November 2, 1982 election, respondent mailed fifty to fifty-five postcards to potential voters. The cards were issued by a campaign committee for, and contained statements in support of, a candidate for judge of the Eighth Appellate District. Respondent signed each of the cards "Judge Jean Murrell Capers." Respondent also drafted, signed, and mailed to a different group of potential voters, fifty to fifty-five letters in support of the same candidate. At the hearing before the board, respondent admitted her support of the candidate, and claimed that at the time she interpreted Canon 7A(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct as imposing a duty to take such actions so as to improve the legal system.
Canon 7 provides in pertinent part:
"A. Political Conduct in General
"(1) A judge * * * should not:
"* * *
"(b) * * * publicly endorse a candidate for public office.
"* * *
"(4) A judge should not engage in any other political activity except on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice."
The board found that respondent's actions were a public endorsement of a candidate for public office and that she knew or should have known that such actions were a violation of Canon 7A(1)(b), and were not permitted by Canon 7A(4). The board further concluded that respondent was guilty of misconduct as defined in Gov. Jud. R. II(5)(a).
The second allegation of violations involved the failure to properly report certain cases on docket reports which respondent filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Civil case No. 78 CVE 18218 was tried without a jury to respondent on July 17, 1979. Respondent marked on the court file that the case was tried on July 17, and heard and submitted on July 30, 1979. Respondent failed to take any action on the case, and no one brought it to her attention until early 1983. A decision was then rendered on February 28, 1983.
Civil case No. 79 CVE 18573, also tried to respondent without a jury, was heard on April 30, 1980. This case also remained pending and was not brought to respondent's attention until February 1981, at which time respondent discovered that the file was lost. The case was settled on September 30, 1983.
As required by M.C. Sup. R. 6(B), respondent filed quarterly reports with the Supreme Court regarding the status of her docket. Each report contains an item under the section for submitted cases entitled "Number over 90 days to be decided by you." On each of the eight reports filed for the period January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1981, respondent marked the number of such cases as zero, thus failing to properly account for the aforementioned cases.
Respondent testified that she was under the impression that submitted cases on the quarterly reports referred only to cases not yet heard, and did not include cases heard and submitted but not yet decided. The board determined that respondent's error was due to confusion and carelessness, rather than misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). The board further concluded that the delays in the decisions were not prejudicial to the administration of justice as proscribed by DR 1-102(A)(5). Finally, the board determined that in light of the circumstances, including respondent's heavy case load, respondent's performance did not constitute failure to dispose promptly of the business of the court in violation of Canon 3A(5) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The board recommended that respondent be given a public reprimand.
Mr. Angelo J. Gagliardo, disciplinary counsel, and Mr. Carl J. Corletzi, for relator.
Mr. Jay B. White, for respondent.
Upon careful review and consideration of the evidence, this court concurs in the finding of the board that respondent violated Canon 7A(1)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and concurs in the recommendation that respondent be given a public reprimand.
Therefore, it is the judgment of this court that respondent be given a public reprimand.
Judgment accordingly.
W. BROWN, SWEENEY, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., dissents.
LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., dissent separately.
I do not believe that the actions of respondent rise to a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and would therefore dismiss the complaint.
LOCHER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.