Ohio R. Superi. Ct. 8
As used in this rule:
At least once every five years, each court or division of a court shall review the compensation paid court appointees to determine the compensation's adequacy and effect upon the availability of court appointments. The court or division shall provide the report to all funding authorities of the court or division.
In making appointments, a court or judicial officer shall take into account all of the following:
In making appointments, a court or judicial officer shall conform to all applicable ethical and campaign finance restrictions and requirements of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct.
Persons on a list maintained by the court or division of persons pre-qualified to serve are not assured a substantially equal number of appointments. No person is granted a legal right or claim by virtue of this rule.
Ohio. R. Superi. Ct. 8
Commentary (July 1, 1997)
Rule 8 requires each court or division of a court to adopt a local rule outlining the procedures to be followed within the court or division for making court appointments. Division (B) of the rule specifies three general items that must be included in each local appointment rule. Together with division (C), division (B) provides courts and divisions with flexibility as to the specific content of the local rule in recognition of the different types of appointments that are made in various courts and divisions.
The rule contemplates that each court or division will maintain a list from which appointments will be made. Lists of potential appointees would be required for appointments frequently made by a court or division, such as the appointment of counsel in criminal cases. However, a list would not be required for appointments rarely made by the court or division, such as the appointment by a probate court of an appraiser for a rare art collection.
Division (D) requires that a notice of appointment and regular fee and expense statements be provided to a party or other person who is required to pay all or a portion of an appointee's fees. This requirement may be satisfied with service upon counsel of record as provided in the applicable rules of procedure. If a criminal defendant is required, as a condition of probation, to repay all or part of the costs of indigent defense, notice under this division is not required.
The rule does not apply to the appointment of "acting judges" pursuant to R.C. 1901.10, 1901.12, or 1907.14 or to the appointment of attorneys pursuant to a contractual arrangement, such as with a multi-county public defender program.
Commentary (January 1, 2017)
The 2017 amendments to this rule primarily address questions that have arisen about appointment of counsel for indigent criminal defendants, but in key respects also apply to all court appointments. The amendments are intended to make the following clarifications:
. The rule does not apply to appointments made by a public defender office or other entity outside the control of a court or judicial officer;
. The rule applies to post-sentencing selection by a court or judicial officer;
. That all applicable ethical and campaign finance restrictions and requirements in Ohio's Judicial Conduct Rules apply to every appointment made by a court or judicial officer;
. That the appointment system used by courts or divisions ensures the equitable distribution of appointments, but does not require a blind rotation system among all those available for appointment or a substantially equal number of appointments to everyone on an appointment list. The goal of equitable distribution is to distribute appointments as widely as reasonably possible among available appointees, but without limiting the discretion used in individual courts and individual cases. Studies show the availability of potential appointees across the state varies widely and that a large majority of responding judges seek to maintain their discretion in making appointments. As has been true for nearly two decades, individual courts remain obligated to adopt an appointment system by local rule. In addition, this amendment clarifies that all appointments are to be made in an objectively rational, fair, neutral, and nondiscriminatory manner, even though judicial officers may take into account many factors including the complexity of individual cases, special needs of a party, avoidance of conflicts of interest, time constraints in a case, and the judicial officer's experience with a potential appointee, including current or prior representation of the client, and the perception of the appointee's commitment to providing quality representation to each client.
.