Opinion
No. 90-2089
Submitted March 20, 1991 —
Decided July 3, 1991.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 90-23.
In a complaint filed April 25, 1990, relator, the Ohio State Bar Association, charged that respondent, County Court Judge Ralph D. Dye, Jr., had violated Canons 3(A)(5) (insufficient attention to Rules of Superintendence), 3(A)(2) and (3) (lack of order and decorum in courtroom) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, M.C.Sup.R. 5 and thereby Canon 3(A)(5) (not complying with time limits, causing speedy trial dismissals), Canon 3(A)(4) (engaging in ex parte communications), and Canon 3(B)(1) (failing to diligently discharge administrative duties). In a May 4, 1990 pro se answer, respondent pled guilty to the complaint. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline held a hearing on August 16, 1990.
The evidence at the hearing established that respondent had violated Canon 3(A)(5) in not giving sufficient attention to this court's Rules of Superintendence for Municipal and County Courts. Respondent, a Morgan County Court judge continuosly since 1960, has maintained his private law offices since 1965 in the Morgan County Courthouse Annex, a public building. Signs visible from the street indicated "Law Dye Law" and in smaller letters, "Morgan County Court." Dye principally used the county courtroom as his private legal office. The courtroom door sign itself was marked "Courtroom," but a sign over the adjacent office of respondent's secretary stated "Ralph Dye, Attorney at Law." The courtroom did not have a judge's bench, tables for counsel, room for a jury, or a dedicated witness chair, nor did it otherwise resemble a courtroom. Rather, this public courtroom, resembling a law office, had a large desk, credenza, law books, and numerous chairs along with filing cabinets containing both personal and court files. The room was also furnished with a flag and two mounted animal heads. When clients called, respondent at times interrupted court hearings so he could talk with his clients in the presence of persons present for the court hearings. Court hearings were thereby delayed.
The county provided the furniture and most of the salary for respondent's secretary, who also served as the clerk of courts. Respondent provided copy machines and typewriters and paid the telephone bill. Respondent paid no rent to use any of these rooms as his law offices. Respondent spent between one third and one half of his time on his judicial duties, and the secretary spent more than one half of her time on clerk of court duties. The arrangement for shared facilities and expenses, fully known by the county commissioners, had been in effect for the last twenty-five years, although some evidence indicated respondent in the past year used a side office for his private law practice.
Although the court handled more than five hundred cases a year, the court lacked a formal docket or journal for judgment entries, and made no judgment entries in criminal cases unless the prosecutor prepared one. The court had no system for making a record in a case, and parties had to make their own arrangements for court reporters. Preliminary hearings for felonies were heard in the common pleas courtroom.
The evidence confirmed the lack of judicial decorum by respondent, as charged in Count II, as well as the other counts charged against respondent.
Subsequently, on March 6, 1991, relator and respondent filed a joint agreement and recommendation. That agreement noted that respondent resigned as a judge on March 1, 1991 and declared that he would never serve as a judge again in Ohio. The relator confirmed that substantial investigation revealed no problems in regard to respondent's practice of law. Respondent further apologized for any perceived disrespect to the administration of justice resulting from the manner in which he has conducted court over the years. The parties jointly recommend that respondent be publicly reprimanded.
Albert L. Bell, William L. Burton and Edwin C. Johnston, for relator.
Charles W. Kettlewell and James W. Ransbottom, for respondent.
We adopt the board's findings of fact and conclusions of law and will accept the parties' strong recommendation. Thus, we hereby publicly reprimand respondent for having violated Canons 3(A)(2), 3(A)(3), 3(A)(4), 3(A)(5), and 3(B)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.