Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Detty
Docket: No. 2002-0331
Court: Ohio Supreme Court; July 3, 2002; Ohio; State Supreme Court
John Detty, an attorney from Jackson, Ohio, faced disciplinary action for misconduct related to a divorce case in which he was romantically involved with the plaintiff. In December 2000, Detty expressed concerns to a common pleas judge about the handling of the case by the judge’s magistrate, specifically regarding the decision to allow Christmas visitation rights to a husband accused of child molestation. He warned that such decisions could lead to political repercussions for the judge. Detty further attempted to influence the situation by asking a municipal judge to intervene, who subsequently informed the common pleas judge of Detty's concerns and political threats. Later that month, the common pleas judge received a significant number of letters from community members expressing concern over child abuse and mentioning the divorce case. A minister revealed that Detty had facilitated this letter-writing campaign by providing a draft letter for congregation members to use. The Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Detty, asserting violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically regarding improper communication with a judge about a pending case. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that while private citizens may contact a judge, an attorney not representing a party should not attempt to influence ongoing litigation. They concluded that Detty's actions violated rules against conduct prejudicial to justice and reflecting poorly on his fitness to practice law. The panel recommended a six-month suspension from practicing law, which was fully stayed. The board upheld this recommendation, and costs were assessed against Detty. A majority of the judges concurred with the decision, while a minority dissented.