Your Magistrate

A $1,000 fine of a judicial candidate has been affirmed by the Ohio Commission of Judges

Based on the joint stipulations, the joint exhibits, and the hearing transcript, the hearing panel did not abuse its discretion in finding that respondent knowingly or recklessly violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) and (G). Judicial candidates are responsible for reviewing and approving the contents of all campaign materials before they or their campaigns disseminate those materials. Jud.Cond.R. 4.2(A)(2). Paragraph one of the complaint addresses two instances in which respondent’s campaign posted photos of her in a judicial robe but with no disclaimer or other language identifying her as a magistrate. The parties stipulated that on these two occasions, respondent’s campaign committee posted the photos without a proper disclaimer. The photos are stipulated exhibits in the record, and the parties agreed that the exhibits are authentic and admissible. The parties also stipulated that these two photos knowingly or recklessly misrepresented respondent’s qualifications. The hearing panel reviewed the evidence and agreed.

The same goes for the statement respondent made at a Guernsey County Republican Club “Meet the Candidate” event and the two radio advertisements referred to in paragraphs two and three of the complaint. The parties stipulated that the recordings of these events were authentic and admissible and each included respondent’s misstatements that she was a judge when she was  actually a magistrate. The parties likewise stipulated that these misstatements were made knowingly or recklessly and that they violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) and (G). The hearing panel reviewed the evidence and agreed. Accordingly, after reviewing the evidence in the record, the commission finds that clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The commission further finds that the hearing panel did not abuse its discretion.

Accordingly, after reviewing the evidence in the record, the commission finds that clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The commission further finds that the hearing panel did not abuse its discretion.

The commission concurs with the hearing panel’s recommendation that respondent be required to pay a fine of $1,000 for her violations of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) and (G) and the costs of the proceedings. The commission also concurs with the hearing panel’s recommendation that respondent pay complainant’s reasonable attorney fees.

(Mike Frisch)