The "Appearance of Impropriety"
Why the Ohio Supreme Court Justices no longer abide by this legal Canon of the Ohio Justice system.
The Supreme Court of Ohio is composed of Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor (R) Justice Sharon L. Kennedy (R) Justice Patrick F. Fischer(R) Justice R. Patrick DeWine(R) Justice Michael P. Donnelly(D) Justice Melody J. Stewart(D) Justice Jennifer Brunner(D). While Justices are judges - they are also ultimately responsible for policing the legal profession in Ohio (not the local Bar or State Bar associations - they just assist). Lawyers, Judges, Magistrates, and Prosecutors are all policed by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The policing system is supposed to work and act very similar to an "Internal Affairs" section in large police departments investigating police officers for corruption - only their job is to examine the potential impropriety of legal professionals.
The poorer that policing, investigation, and examination of the legal profession are - the fewer Ohioans realize justice….and the more that arrogant SOB’s get away with murder. While each Supreme Court Justices may be a superb judge and expert of the law - all one has to do is review the newspaper to realize that they are not very good at policing the legal system in Ohio.
The august arrogance on display in Ohio's legal profession is more mind-boggling criminal and unethical than what an uneducated, common criminal could ever hope to achieve. Every year, every county and community in Ohio has multiple examples of vile and disgusting behavior by judges, magistrates, prosecutors, and lawyers that seem to have no repercussions. People have been murdered for their gross and callous disregard for the law. Worse yet, there is no review process to ensure that these types of circumstances never happen again.
We all know the score - lawyers protect lawyers.
While many lawyers present themselves as paragons of ethics and virtue - and expect you to recognize their superiority to judge morally and dispassionately - they are far from the pious judges they make themselves out to be. They contend to be ethical and unbiased in pursuing justice. However, bias is never put aside, and if one legal professional is found guilty of wrong-doing, they are given a light sentence with the white-glove treatment. It's not just my opinion - it is a pattern of entitled corruption apparent all over Ohio.
Even though Republicans control the Ohio Supreme Court - the corruption is getting worse - not better. Clearly and without a doubt, the antiquated process of dealing with the internal affairs of Ohio's legal system is not working and needs to change.
CAN A JUSTICE BE BRIBED FOR $1,000?
Here is an example of what the ordinary layperson instinctively knows is unethical - yet our Supreme Court Justices participated in this "appearance of impropriety."
If you head over to the Ohio Attorney General's website, you can go to the opinions section of the website. Opinions are where the Attorney General of the executive branch renders opinions/decisions of his interpretation of the application of law in a whole host of situations. These opinions help guide legal professionals where Ohio laws may have a gray area. For example, opinion 2021-023 will leap out to many people because it is rare to find where the Ohio Supreme Court requests opinions from the Ohio Attorney General. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court did - and it goes to how the Court is not unbiased and does not judge dispassionately.
While constitutional scholars are arguing in Court whether the Governor has the power to bribe state employees with $1,000 each to get the experimental COVID-19 vaccine - using taxpayer dollars - the Ohio Justices wanted their $1,000 bribe for taking the vaccine. The Ohio Attorney General agreed - there was nothing improper with the Governor using taxpayer funds to bribe the Justices TO GET VACCINATED.
The appearance of impropriety in this case is innate, self-evident, and inescapable.
How could the justices, with a straight face, not have to recuse themselves from rendering a ruling on the Constitutionality of a vaccination participation program of which they are active participants? How could any Ohioan seeking any decision concerning vaccines get a fair and impartial decision?
This behavior is not surprising to those that pay attention to the "Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility" that was replaced by the inferior "Ohio Code of Professional Conduct." These codes are supposed to be the rules that legal professionals in Ohio live by. Failure to adhere to the regulations can result in fines and losing a license to practice law in Ohio. The Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility seemed to make broad statements of ethical behavior and did not try to define every given situation. The thought was that they are trained lawyers, and they should innately know what ethical conduct is. Unfortunately, it is becoming harder and harder for Ohio attorneys to discern what unethical behavior is and what impropriety is. So the new document (Ohio Code of Professional Conduct)seems to eliminate the broad-based definitions of ethics in favor of more specific situations. While this provides more guidance for certain conditions - it apparently leaves the legal community off the hook in all the areas not mentioned. It appears what the Supreme Court Justices did was try to meld the recommendations from the American Bar Association into their rules.
CANON 9 IS NO MORE
Cannon 9 of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility was eliminated from the Ohio Code of Professional Conduct. "What was Cannon 9?" you ask. Cannon 9 was a set of rules that provided that "A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety." IT IS A VERY HIGH BAR to meet especially when you consider all the unethical behavior occurring in Ohio legal system.
Hence, the appearance of impropriety of the Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court is deafening. Unfortunately, their actions have caused many Ohioans to lose confidence in the legal system. We are worse off because of our justices not recognizing what unethical behavior is. It is no wonder their policing abilities are so poor and why the legal community loses more and more of their ethical backbone every year.
CHANGING RULES TO PROTECT THE GUILTY
I even remember when the guide to professional conduct had rules about inappropriately affecting the outcome of an election by using the courts to smear the perception of a candidate - or to use the voluntary stepping down from office to satisfy the judicial branch from pursuing any criminal penalties in plea bargains. A duly elected officeholder's position was not to be threatened by the executive branch or the judicial branch as a bargaining chip in litigation. Where you could have a Republican Prosecutor tell a Democrat legislator that if they resign from office - they will not seek to imprison them for a potential crime during a plea bargain agreement.... or vice versa. I remember when a prosecutor, a judge, and the chairman of the Democrat party did just that to an Ohio legislator. The following year that judge worked with Supreme Court Justices to change the code so that those actions were perfectly fine.
Not only is the Ohio Government out of control with spending - the entire Ohio legal system is out of control and seemingly above reproach.
REPUBLICAN ETHICS AND THE SUPREME COURT
The Ohio State Central Committee just endorsed three Republican justices for the Ohio Supreme Court. The Republican Party did this - absolutely, positively, and without a doubt in violation of their bylaws. The bylaws state that they must first adopt an endorsement policy guidelines before endorsements occur. Even though the justices were made aware of the violation of their endorsement - they did not do the ethical thing. The Justices should have thanked the Ohio Republican party for their zeal to endorse them but recognized that their endorsement was invalid and looked forward to properly being endorsed. This is what people with ethical character do. They do the right thing even if it does not benefit them.
Ohio is losing its ethics because the Ohio Republican Party - the Party in charge - has lost its ethics. The Party needs to set an example by adopting a code of ethics - which it refuses to do....
Under Ohio law, lawyers or parties in a court case can seek to force the recusal of a judge over what they see as a conflict of interest.
But the recusal law conveniently doesn’t apply to members of the Ohio Supreme Court.
That means there likely is no way for groups behind the high-stakes lawsuits challenging Ohio’s governor to block Ohio Supreme Court Justices from ruling when they have a conflict of interest or when their father is Gov. Mike DeWine.
Judicial ethical rules require Ohio judges to recuse themselves from hearing cases involving their close family members, or “whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” And state law allows for parties, if they think a judge handling their case is biased, to file what’s called an affidavit of disqualification, a written request to the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court to replace that judge at the municipal, county, state appellate or state court of claims level.
But the process does not apply to Supreme Court justices. Instead, under the Supreme Court’s internal rules, it is essentially up to the judge to determine whether their own disqualification is required.
Justice DeWine for instance did not recuse himself from redistricting cases, arguing ethical restrictions don’t require him to do so - even though there is an appearance of an improper influence. DeWine has recused himself from lawsuits against actions his father has taken as governor. But when it comes to redistricting, he said his father is just one of seven members of the redistricting commission, diluting the personal influence he had over the process. Just ten years ago - comments like that from Pat DeWine would have had him in an inquiry fighting for his law license.
Under Ohio Supreme Court rules, parties can file a written request for a justice to recuse themselves. The justice must respond in writing, either a week before oral arguments for the case or, if oral arguments aren’t scheduled, “as soon as practicable.” The rules give justices discretion to decide whether they think they have a conflict.
If a justice thinks they might have a personal conflict, they have the option of formally asking parties in the case to overlook it.
DeWine’s status as a judge hearing cases involving his father is an issue that’s popped up over the years, given the elder DeWine’s longtime prominence in state politics. In one instance, it led to him being subject to a disciplinary complaint while his father was state attorney general.
A three-judge panel in 2018 dismissed the complaint against the younger DeWine after he didn’t recuse himself while on the Ohio Supreme Court from cases involving his father’s Ohio Attorney General’s Office. The complaint, which became public after a three-judge panel found it had “good cause” and was worth investigating, sought to disqualify Justice DeWine from hearing cases involving the attorney general’s office in the future.
While acknowledging the judicial ethical standards forbidding judges from hearing cases involving their family, the panel wrote “the totality of the circumstances must be considered when disqualification is at issue.” Relevant factors, the panel wrote, included the elder DeWine not personally appearing in any of the cases, and his not having a financial interest in any of the case’s outcomes.
In extraordinary cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has intervened to remove a state supreme court justice from a case. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision forced the recusal of Brent Benjamin, a West Virginia state supreme court justice who had cast a deciding vote on a lawsuit against a coal executive who had spent $3 million supporting Benjamin’s election campaign. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court found the conflict of interest was a federal due-process violation.
Now the big question is - is there a conflict of interest of our Justices ruling on vaccine mandates when they actively sought to take a bribe to be vaccinated?