Summary
In Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferreri, 88 Ohio St.3d 456, 2000-Ohio-382 a single incident involving an ex-parte conversation by a judge resulted in a six-month suspension.
Summary of this case from Disciplinary Counsel v. O'NeillOpinion
No. 99-2175.
Submitted March 8, 2000.
Decided May 17, 2000.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-81.
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Brent L. English; Carlile, Patchen Murphy and H. Ritchey Hollenbaugh, for respondent.
On April 16, 1998, respondent, Robert A. Ferreri of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0000860, a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Juvenile Division, made an unannounced visit to the office of Yvonne Billingsley, legal administrator of the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services. Billingsley interrupted a staff conference she was in, to meet with respondent. The two discussed in a confrontational manner respondent's earlier unreturned telephone call and his request that Billingsley's department terminate its opposition to the transfer and consolidation of certain cases in respondent's court. Respondent's irritation that Billingsley had not responded to his phone call and Billingsley's annoyance at respondent's unplanned arrival and interruption of her staff conference to meet with him increased the animosity between the parties. Respondent then met with Billingsley's superior and complained about Billingsley's not returning phone calls. He also asked the superior to deal with the consolidation problem promptly.
On December 7, 1998, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging, among other matters, that because the Department of Children and Family Services was a party to some of the cases that were subject to the motion to consolidate, respondent's conduct involved an ex parte contact that violated the Disciplinary Rules and the Code of Judicial Conduct. After respondent answered, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board").
The panel found the facts as stated and concluded that respondent's actions violated Canon 3(B)(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct (a judge shall not engage in ex parte communication except in certain very limited circumstances) and DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Given the circumstances, the panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
On June 9, 1999, for conduct that occurred in 1995 and 1996, we suspended respondent from the practice of law in Ohio and concurrently suspended him, without pay, from his position as judge of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, for eighteen months with the final twelve months stayed. Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferreri (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 649, 710 N.E.2d 1107. In Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferreri (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1245, 722 N.E.2d 88, we declined to rule on respondent's December 9, 1999 motion for reinstatement until the resolution of this proceeding.
Now, in this proceeding, we adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. However, respondent's conduct warrants a sanction more severe than the public reprimand. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months and concurrently suspended, without pay, from his position as judge of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, for six months with the suspensions deemed to have commenced on December 9, 1999. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent and would publicly reprimand respondent.