Opinion
D.D. No. 21
Decided June 5, 1963.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Judge of trial court — Disciplinary action — Penalty warranted — Public reprimand.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The relator, the Stark County Bar Association, filed a complaint against the respondent, Paul G. Weber, a judge of the Common Pleas Court of Stark County, charging him with practices which tend to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.
A hearing was had before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The board found that respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1922; that he served as city solicitor for ten years; and that, in 1946, he was elected judge of the Court of Common Pleas, an office which he now holds.
The board found further:
(1) In February 1960, respondent presided over naturalization proceedings, at which he appeared in the courtroom approximately 50 minutes after the scheduled time, attempted to preside while intoxicated, and so demeaned himself as to debase the objective of the proceedings. His conduct disclosed that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and he was disrespectful to members of the bar association.
The board concluded that by such conduct he violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
(2) In October 1959, while a member of a three-judge court hearing an unauthorized practice of law case, respondent arrived in court to commence the third day of the hearing while he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
The board concluded that such conduct was a violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
(3) In May 1956, while presiding at a jury trial, respondent had been drinking a beverage containing alcohol before his appearance in court and the odor of alcohol was on his breath. He attempted to restrain counsel from presenting motions in an orderly fashion, and engaged in heated arguments with counsel after the jury had been dismissed but while some of the jurors were still in the courtroom.
The board concluded that by such conduct respondent violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
(4) On and after midnight of May 26, 1956, respondent was intoxicated from attendance at public bars and while in such state parked his automobile in a conspicuously lighted parking lot in such position that he could be seen by those passing along the sidewalk and remained slumped over the steering wheel for more than one hour.
The board concluded that such conduct violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
(5) In February 1954, respondent presided over a jury trial of one charged with second degree murder. Prior to the trial the respondent, while drinking alcoholic beverages, stated that if the case came before him he would see that the accused was sent up. While the case was being tried, respondent, while drinking in a public inn, stated that he was going to give the accused 20 years.
The board concluded that such conduct violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
(6) Respondent has regularly during the past ten years failed to appear for scheduled trials, by reason of overindulgence in the use of intoxicating liquor, and has failed, for the same reason, to be punctual for trials when jurors, parties, witnesses and attorneys were present and ready to proceed.
The board concluded that such conduct violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
(7) At a hearing in August 1959, before Chief Justice Weygandt on an affidavit of bias and prejudice, the respondent appeared after the scheduled time, with full knowledge of the time of such hearing, and gave no excuse for his tardiness. In his testimony at the hearing he was evasive and untruthful.
The board concluded that such conduct violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
The board found that since February 20, 1960, until the date of hearing, respondent has fulfilled the obligations of his office, has been attentive to his duties and has not used or consumed alcoholic beverages.
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period.
The matter came before this court for consideration of the report of the board and objections of the respondent. On June 27, 1962, this court had placed on its journal an entry reading in part as follows:
"On consideration of the board's recommendation of indefinite suspension, in view of the finding by the board that since February 20, 1960, respondent `has fulfilled the obligations of his office, has been attentive to his duties and has not used or consumed alcoholic beverages,' a ruling thereon by the court is hereby deferred and this cause is continued for final determination until one year from the date of this entry, conditioned upon the respondent's paying the costs herein * * *."
Mr. Samuel Krugliak, Mr. William K. Yost, Mr. H. Clifton Graybill, Mr. Earle E. Wise, Mr. James W. Anderson and Mr. Frank Lucas, for relator.
Mr. D. Bruce Mansfield and Mr. Justin T. Rogers, Jr., for respondent.
Since this court's order of June 27, 1962, deferring final determination of this cause, the respondent's conduct has been beyond reproach, and, it appearing further that respondent has paid the costs and that there is not a likelihood of a repetition of his former conduct, this court is of the opinion that the discipline to be administered should be a public reprimand, and it is so ordered.
Judgment accordingly.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH and HERBERT, JJ., concur.
GIBSON, J., not participating.
I dissented from the June 27, 1962, order of this court in this case. However, because of that order and of the subsequent conduct of respondent, this court could not now reasonably render any judgment other than the one described in the court's opinion. I therefore concur in that judgment.