Judge In The Docket
An oral argument this Thursday before the Ohio Supreme Court
Disciplinary Counsel v. Judge Timothy J. Grendell, Case No. 2024-1409
Geauga County
Geauga County Juvenile and Probate Court Judge Timothy Grendell faces a possible suspension from practicing law for 11 violations of judicial and attorney conduct rules. The misconduct found by the Board of Professional Conduct involved a contentious visitation and custody case, ongoing and heated disagreements between his staff and the county auditor’s office, and the judge’s testimony before the Ohio House of Representatives supporting a bill his wife, then a House member, was sponsoring.
The visitation and custody dispute involved the parents of three children – one girl and two boys. The Board of Professional Conduct report concluded that Judge Grendell ordered the boys, who were 15 and 13, to visit their father without considering the children’s comments to the judge, the recommendations of professionals, and the children’s best interests. When the father arrived at the sheriff’s department in May 2020 to pick up the boys, they were scared, crying, and didn’t want to go. The judge was contacted, and he ordered that the boys be taken to the juvenile detention center on charges of being unruly. They were held separately in detention from Friday evening until taken to a Monday court hearing.
The board found that Judge Grendell violated multiple ethics rule in the three disciplinary matters, including failing to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s independence, integrity, and impartiality; failing to uphold and apply the law; abusing the prestige of a judicial office to advance his or others’ personal or economic interests; and improperly offering his testimony at a public hearing before a legislative body. In its report to the Ohio Supreme Court, the board recommends that the judge be suspended from practicing law for 18 months, with six months stayed, with certain conditions.
Judge Grendell objects to the rule violations and recommended sanction, arguing that he committed no misconduct. Because of his objections, the Supreme Court will hear his case during oral arguments. Three amicus briefs were filed in the case in support of Judge Grendell.
Judge Conveys That Mother Was Alienating Children From Father
The board spends about 50 pages of its 88-page report on the custody and visitation dispute between Stacey Hartman and Grant Glasier, who are divorced. A modified custody agreement made in August 2018 designated Hartman as the children’s residential parent and legal guardian and set up a reunification process between Glasier and the children. The children had been resisting visitation with their father, pointing to anger issues. In August 2019, at the request of a domestic relations judge, Judge Grendell took jurisdiction of the case in juvenile court.
During hearings in early 2020, Judge Grendell repeatedly blamed Hartman and her partner for the children’s alienation from their father. He made veiled threats of incarceration if there was interference with the children building a loving relationship with their father.
At the May 2020 hearing where Judge Grendell ordered the boys’ visitation with their father, the judge gave legal advice to the father, prohibited the mother from offering relevant information, and failed overall to consider the children’s best interests, the board reported. After the boys were held in detention for the weekend for not going with their father for a visit, they were brought to the courthouse and kept in a waiting area for a detention hearing.
The prosecutor’s office had determined that the unruly charges against the boys and their detention weren’t warranted. However, when the prosecutor went to the courtroom, she was told she wasn’t invited to the hearing before Judge Grendell. The judge testified later that he had cancelled the hearing. The board report noted, however, that the judge held ex parte discussions with the boys’ lawyers that day. The boys’ mother waited in the court hallway for hours for the hearing without being told it was cancelled. The boys were held from noon until about 3 p.m. when a law enforcement officer asked the judge, who was leaving the courthouse, what to do with the boys. He said to release them to their mother. Later that year, Judge Grendell transferred the case back to the Geauga County Domestic Relations Court.
Among its findings, the board stated that Judge Grendell repeatedly failed to follow the law in the case and has refused to acknowledge the errors. His errors “deliberately side-stepped substantive law and deprived Hartman and the boys of due process and a fair hearing,” the board report found.
In Dispute With Auditor’s Office, Judge Engages With Police
The second count against Judge Grendell stemmed from a disagreement between the Geauga County Auditor’s Office and Judge Grendell and his staff regarding approving invoices, called “vouchers,” for the court. The auditor’s office and the court are located in the same building.
Police were called after one disagreement between the staffs, and a Chardon police lieutenant was dispatched. Judge Grendell eventually arrived in his robe. During the conversation, which was outside on the street, the judge raised his voice and yelled at the officer. The judge threatened to issue a court order and use his contempt powers against law enforcement. The board report said the judge was trying to intimidate the police from investigating court employees for crimes alleged by the auditor’s staff. Soon after the lieutenant returned to the Chardon Police Department, Judge Grendell showed up. He raised possible contempt charges and a federal lawsuit against law enforcement with the police chief. The judge also threatened a city prosecutor with the same.
Judge Testifies Before General Assembly About COVID-19 Reporting
In June 2020, Judge Grendell traveled to Columbus to testify in support of a House bill. His wife, Diane Grendell, was a member of the House and the primary sponsor of the bill. In his testimony, he claimed that the Ohio Department of Health was failing to report daily statistics about the COVID-19 pandemic. He asserted that the department was presenting only “the scary half” of the facts by using only cumulative statistics. The board report noted that the department presented both daily and cumulative data for the daily briefings.
Judge Grendell wasn’t subpoenaed to testify at the hearing, and he wasn’t asked to testify by any judicial association or by the Ohio State Bar Association, the board found. It also determined that the judge’s assertions that the department’s faulty reporting impacted the judiciary and his court “was tenuous, at best, and for the most part, based on inaccurate or untrue information.”
Judge Defends His Actions
In his objections, Judge Grendell explains he was tasked in the Hartman/Glasier case with implementing the visitation agreement and reunification steps between the children and their father. The judge maintains that many of the allegations against him involve supposed legal errors, which should be dealt with in an appeal or other legal proceedings, not in a disciplinary case. The board exceeded its authority and misinterpreted the law, the judge contends.
Judge Grendell asserts that the charge related to the auditor’s office doesn’t consider that he was obligated to protect the integrity of and public confidence in the court as the administrative judge. In his view, it wasn’t professional misconduct to tell the Chardon police and prosecutor why he intended to issue an order to protect the ability of his employees to enter the public office of the auditor to carry out the court’s business.
Judge Grendell argues that his testimony on an Ohio bill involves his First Amendment right to free speech. Because this disciplinary charge raises a constitutional issue, it must be decided by the Supreme Court first, before the Court considers the misconduct allegations. He contends that the judicial conduct rule is unconstitutional because he has the right to testify before a legislative committee about a proposed law or any other issue of public concern.
He maintains that the Court’s disciplinary sanction, if any, should be a public reprimand or, at most, a fully stayed suspension.
Disciplinary Counsel Argues Rules Are Constitutional, Supports Suspension
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which investigated the misconduct allegations, reinforces the board’s conclusions and proposed sanction. The office explains that for a judicial conduct rule that bans speech to stand, the state must have a compelling interest for the limitation. Rule 3.2 of the Oho Code of Judicial Conduct, for example, prohibits judges from voluntarily testifying at a public hearing or consulting with a legislative body “except in connection with matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.” The rule is constitutional because it is tailored to advance Ohio’s compelling interests in judicial integrity, public confidence in the courts, and the separation of powers among the branches of government, the office maintains.
The disciplinary counsel notes that after hearing nine days of testimony at Judge Grendell’s disciplinary hearing, the board found the judge committed more than good-faith legal errors in the child custody case. The board report pointed to Judge Grendell’s “blatant, repeated errors of fact and law, his refusal to acknowledge those errors time and time again,” and his dismissal of his responsibility for the conduct. The disciplinary counsel notes that, when asked if he would put the boys in custody again with the same facts, Judge Grendell answered yes. The judge’s actions were more than mistakes in his judicial discretion, the disciplinary counsel concludes.
– Kathleen Maloney
Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.
(Mike Frisch)