No Place For Humor
The Ohio Supreme Court found an attorney in contempt for failure to comply with an earlier court order.
The court ordered that the stayed two-year suspension revoked and imposed the actual suspension.
This report of the Board of Commissioners on Admissions and Grievances describes his background
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the state of Ohio on November 9, 1974. Respondent is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School. Respondent is 64 years old. Respondent has been a domestic relations magistrate for 33 years, serving in Crawford and Morrow counties and currently in Delaware County.
He is a “highly motivated public servant”
Respondent manages a busy case docket, including highly contentious and emotional domestic litigation. Respondent estimates that counting divorce trials, post decree matters, civil protection orders, child support enforcement agency matters, and other miscellaneous matters, he conducts approximately 1,000 hearings per year. Respondent prides himself on quick turnaround of his written decisions. Respondent enjoys his work and would like to work one or two more years after he turns 65 this year.
But, as like all of us, no one is perfect
Certain of the character letters also mention other aspects of Respondent’s character that are somewhat consistent with Respondent’s behavior in the Davis/Spriggs and the Krawczyk matters. Specifically, some of the letters describe Respondent as quick-tempered. Respondent is also described as having a quirky or unusual sense of humor that he sometimes uses to break the tension.
One matter that led to the misconduct
The Davis/Spriggs matter involved a former wife’s motion to hold her former husband in contempt of court for distributing nude pictures over the internet of the former wife in violation of the divorce decree. The litigation lasted over two years resulting in numerous discovery disputes and a five-day trial on the merits. Respondent’s misconduct consisted of several isolated incidents occurring at various times during this bitterly contested litigation…
On several occasions during status conferences and motion hearings, Respondent conducted himself in an unprofessional and undignified manner and treated the wife and her lawyer with extreme disrespect. During a status conference regarding the logistics of the wife’s expert examining the husband’s computers, Respondent mockingly imitated the voice of the wife’s attorney over the telephone in her presence. After that hearing, Respondent walked into the hallway where the wife was seated and “slowly ogled” the wife “from head to toe in a demeaning and degrading fashion.” Respondent later told the wife’s attorney that she would need to provide Respondent with a CD containing intimate photos of Davis’ then current girlfriend. At the hearing, Respondent explained that the photos of the girlfriend were relevant to the proceeding, but he acknowledged that in asking for them. “I probably said some wise thing.” Stipulation 20, 23, 26; Hearing Tr. 29-36.
Respondent acknowledged that all of the above comments were inappropriate. Respondent admitted that he was “‘being a wise ass, and not thinking before you talk.” Respondent acknowledged that his looking at the wife in a manner that she perceived to be degrading was “stupid” on his part. Id. 21, 32.
During a discovery motion hearing regarding the lawyers’ having withheld requested discovery, Respondent lost his temper stating: “This is so goddamn simple. If you give the discovery and don’t do all this bullshit, I don’t have to sit here for hours and listen to this crap. So everybody’s excused. Goddamn it. Comply with the discovery and shut up once in awhile. You make 17 hairline things, we’ll do 8 of them but not these 9. Stupid, All Franklin County attorneys are stupid.” Stipulation 29; Ex. 5.
While the wife’s attorney was addressing Respondent in a pretrial conference regarding recently filed motions, Respondent allowed the husband’s attorney to repeatedly throw paperclips at Respondent’s head with one or more striking Respondent on the forehead. Respondent took no action to stop the lawyer from creating this disruption. Stipulation 31.
Later during the trial, and just before the wife was to take the stand for crossexamination, Respondent jokingly told the husband’s attorney that Respondent would give the husband’s attorney a dollar if he could make the wife cry during her cross-examination. At the same time, Respondent removed a dollar bill from his wallet and placed it on the bench.
(Mike Frisch)