Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a judicial campaign grievance against a candidate, David Per Due, filed by his opponent, Judge Alfred Mackey, for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct during the 2002 election. The complaints were reviewed by a five-judge commission appointed by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The grievances included improper party identification, dissemination of misleading campaign literature, derogatory statements regarding campaign contributions, and allegations of judicial decisions being for sale. A hearing panel found clear evidence of violations in three cases, recommending a public reprimand and that Per Due pay the costs of the proceedings. The Supreme Court's commission affirmed the panel's findings and emphasized the egregious nature of the violations, deciding that the initial sanctions were inadequate and modifying them to serve as a deterrent and in the public interest. The commission ordered a public reprimand and required Per Due to pay attorney fees and costs, while rejecting his request for fee waivers. This decision underscores the importance of ethical conduct in judicial campaigns and the role of commissions in enforcing standards.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dignity of Judicial Candidatessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A violation was found under Canon 7(B)(1) for making derogatory statements about campaign contributions, impacting the perceived integrity of the judiciary.
Reasoning: In a newspaper article, Per Due labeled financial contributions to Mackey’s campaign as 'despicable' and suggested contributors were 'trying to buy a judgeship,' violating Canon 7(B)(1) regarding the dignity of judicial candidates.
Judicial Campaign Violations under Canon 7subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The commission reviewed multiple violations of Canon 7 by a judicial candidate, including improper party identification and dissemination of misleading information.
Reasoning: Per Due identified himself as a 'conservative Republican' in campaign materials after the primary, violating Canon 7(B)(3)(c), which restricts party identification post-primary to in-person declarations.
Misleading Campaign Literaturesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The respondent was found to have knowingly distributed misleading information about an opponent’s involvement in a criminal case, violating ethical standards.
Reasoning: Per Due distributed misleading literature about Judge Mackey’s involvement in a criminal case, violating Canon 7(E)(1) by knowingly disseminating false information.
Responsibility for Prosecuting Judicial Campaign Grievancessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In judicial campaign grievance proceedings, the complainant, not the Disciplinary Counsel, is responsible for prosecuting the case, serving the public interest.
Reasoning: In judicial campaign grievance proceedings, the complainant is responsible for prosecuting the case, unlike typical judicial or attorney disciplinary actions where the Disciplinary Counsel handles prosecution.
Review and Sanctioning Authority of Judicial Commissionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The commission has the authority to review hearing panel findings and modify sanctions to ensure they are adequate to serve public interest and deterrent purposes.
Reasoning: The commission concluded that the original recommended sanctions were insufficient given the severity of the violations and determined to modify them to better serve deterrent purposes and public interest.