Post-Hearing Rhetoric In Judicial Misconduct Case
The Relator has filed a reply to the post-hearing brief of the accused Ohio judge in a case charging judicial misconduct
In her caustic post-hearing brief, respondent employs the age-old “deflect and blame” strategy by assailing relator for drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing. Try as she may, respondent cannot escape the serious and dishonest misconduct that she engaged in or the stain she has left on Ohio’s judiciary. Her request for a public reprimand in the face of 15 rule violations exposes an arrogance that likely brought respondent before this panel in the first place. To protect the integrity of the institution, relator urges this panel to recommend an actual suspension from the practice of law.
Respondent precluded relator from taking her deposition before the hearing in this matter; then, during the hearing, respondent—a sitting judge—invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to relator’s limited questions, thus ending any inquiry into her conduct. Yet respondent lashes out at relator for drawing rational and reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at the hearing. Respondent cannot have it both ways. Ironically, respondent chastises relator for assigning a sinister motive but then turns around and claims that she acted “unintentionally, and without any pecuniary or malicious motive.” Just like relator, respondent has every right to argue her position. But the reality is that we do not know respondent’s motive. We can only draw inferences based upon the evidence. “Closing argument presents counsel with the opportunity to comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.” Roetenberger v. Christ Hosp. (First Dist.), 2005-Ohio-5205, ¶ 9. And that is exactly what relator did in its post-hearing brief.
In crying foul, respondent overlooks the obvious. In three of the four counts in the complaint, respondent stipulated that she violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, which includes her failure to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Many of relator’s reasonable inferences flow from the appearances that respondent created. In failing to disclose the true nature of her relationship with Dottore and others, respondent invited questions and speculation. Respondent’s conduct did not happen in a vacuum. And it had consequences. Most notably, it severely damaged the public’s perception of the judiciary as a fair, impartial, and independent body. “Preservation of public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is vitally important, and judicial decisions must be rendered in a manner that does not create a perception of partiality. An appearance of bias can be just as damaging to public confidence as actual bias.” In re Disqualification of Celebrezze, 2023-Ohio-4383, ¶ 94, citing In re Disqualification of Murphy, 2005-Ohio-7148, ¶ 6.
Finally, respondent glosses over the dishonesty that permeated every aspect of this case and instead tries to play the victim. The only way to protect the public and begin to repair the harm respondent caused to the judiciary is to suspend respondent for an actual period of time.
From the post-hearing brief on behalf of the judge
Relator’s closing brief takes stipulated facts, injects them with salacious rhetoric, and under the guise of some ill-conceived literary license argues that the appropriate sanction should be a one-year suspension with six months stayed. If we had the same sort of facts in this matter as Campbell and Burge where actual harm and the violation of sacred constitutional rights took place, a six-month suspension might be appropriate. However, here we have a judge who failed to follow the administrative rules for the assignment of cases and who (through counsel) failed to properly define for disciplinary counsel a complicated relationship with someone she and her family have known since the age of seven.
Judge Celebrezze submits that when the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, and pertinent Supreme Court of Ohio precedent are considered, a public reprimand is warranted.
The links to the pleadings may be found here.
Cleveland.com reported on the recommendation of Disciplinary Counsel
Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze should be suspended from practicing law for a year for funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars in business to a longtime friend, the state’s disciplinary counsel said Friday.
The counsel recommended that six months of the punishment be dropped if she commits no other misconduct.
Our coverage of the charges is linked here.
A Cleveland judge has been charged with Code of Judicial Conduct violations by Ohio Disciplinary Counsel.
One count involves allegations that the judge was biased based on “inappropriate and undisclosed” personal relationships with three individuals, most prominently with Mark Dottere.
In response to a grievance filed by a litigant, the judge admitted a close personal friendship with Dottere since they were children; she denied a romantic relationship and dismissed a kiss between them outside Delmonico’s Steakhouse by stating that they both are Italian and have a habit of kissing all family and close friends.
She allegedly told two other judges that she was in love with Dottere and had consulted counsel about a possible divorce.
The litigant [Jardine] who filed a judicial complaint was involved in a divorce; he and his wife “owned and operated several funeral homes and cremation centers in Northeast Ohio.”
The judge allegedly appointed Dottere (a non-attorney) as receiver and approved the payment of substantial fees to him as well as approving his counsel fees.
“Suspecting an improper relationship between respondent and Dottere,” Jardine hired a private investigator to surveil them.
The surveillance bore fruit and led to her disqualification.
There are allegations in two other domestic cases and alleged false statements during the disciplinary investigation.
(Mike Frisch)