This week, a lawyer for Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Pinkey S. Carr made oral arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court. This hearing was the final step in the resolution of charges filed against the judge on September 16, 2020. The allegations of wrongdoing, brought by the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct — the arm of the Ohio Supreme Court that disciplines Ohio lawyers and judges — cite more than 100 counts of serious misconduct in a 50-page charging document.
Some of the charges stem from allegations that Carr disregarded an order of the Administrative Judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court issued March 13, 2020, ordering the rescheduling of all civil and criminal cases in response to the Coronavirus outbreak. This order effectively shut down all court operations. The allegations state that Carr, in violation of that order, conducted court hearings and issued arrest warrants for people who failed to appear. All the proceedings were captured on video tape by a court recording devise and were widely reported in local media.
The complaint, which reviews almost a year of the judge’s conduct and includes verbatim excerpts from court transcripts, sets forth various allegations of misconduct, including allegations that she arbitrarily incarcerated five defendants for a total of 28 days, including a woman whose sole violation was rolling her eyes at the judge.
In the oral arguments, her conduct was described by Disciplinary Counsel Joseph Caligiuri as a pervasive pattern of dishonesty, in that she made untrue statements to the administrative judge, signed journal entries that contained untruths, and made false statements to the media and to the people whom she asked to write letters of support on her behalf.
In a trial before a panel appointed by the Board of Professional Conduct, conducted last October, Carr admitted to some of the acts of wrongdoings. The validity of the other charges was determined by the panel. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the panel recommended that Carr be suspended from the practice of law for two years, which would mean that Carr would be off the bench, without pay, for two years.
The Justices of the Supreme Court must now decide whether to accept the recommendation of the panel. As the final arbiter they can accept, reject or lengthen the recommended period of suspension. In a worst-case scenario, they could find the violations so egregious that they could impose a permanent disbarment from the practice of law.
In September of 2020, the Court adopted the recommendation of a disciplinary panel that recommended the suspension of Lucas County Common Pleas Judge Michael R. Goulding for six months for interfering in a case assigned to another judge. The court stayed the six-months suspension, and the judge continued to serve with the suspension on his record.
In August of 2021, the Court adopted the recommendation of the disciplinary panel to impose a six-month suspension against Ottawa County Judge Bruce Winters. The court found that Judge Winters violated the canon of ethics that prohibit judges from engaging in conversation with parties to litigation without the other side being present. The panel found that Winters had engaged in Facebook conversations over a period of six-months with an offender who had both civil and criminal matters pending in his court.
In November of 2021, Judge Mark Repp of the Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court was suspended from the practice of law for one year after he ordered a non-disruptive woman in the courtroom gallery — she was sitting in the courtroom watching a friend’s case — to be drug-tested and held in custody until she complied. In adopting the recommendation of the disciplinary panel, the court stated that there was absolutely nothing that could justify the judge’s conduct.
At this week’s hearing for Judge Carr, Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor pointed out that there are, in addition to the period of suspension during which the judge does not receive a salary, collateral consequences to the imposition of sanctions. In Carr’s case, a two-year suspension will mean that in 2023, when she would have to file petitions to seek re-election to her current seat, she would be ineligible because she does not have a law license.
Carr’s lawyer, Nicholas E. Froning, argued that if the 24 month suspension is imposed, 18 months should be stayed by the court which would mean that Carr would only lose six months of her salary and would be eligible to seek re-election.
By way of mitigation, and in hopes of getting a lighter sentence, Froning argued that a major contributing factor to Carr’s conduct was the fact that she was suffering from the effects of menopause and sleep apnea. Because of her physical condition relating to menopause, she could not function at a 100% level.
Justice Patrick Fisher, who has been an appellate judge since 2010 and on the Ohio Supreme Court since 2017, cut to the chase a few minutes into Froning’s argument. He asked the question of the day: what do menopause and sleep apnea have to do with lying?
Since biblical times, women have been blamed for many evils in society due to the so-called curse of Eve. Since time immemorial women have been accused of lacking mental stability and an inability to handle stressful situations during menstruation. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, men routinely argued that women should not be allowed to vote or hold public office because of the impact of menstrual cycles and menopause.
How many times have we all heard the derogatory and totally disgusting comment that “she must be on the rag?” How many times have you heard a reference to the time when women go through menopause as the time “when women turn into witches?” Translated, her menstrual cycle or bodily changes during menopause are so disruptive to her hormone levels and mental abilities that she was unable to function properly. That is exactly what Carr’s lawyer argued.
Carr’s lawyers used the very argument that has been promulgated for centuries to keep women out of the mainstream. It is not only hollow but sexist. Hopefully the menopause defense will fall on deaf ears — especially the ears of the five women and two men who heard this week’s arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court.
To view the pleadings in Ohio Disciplinary Counsel vs. Pinkey S. Carr see Ohio Supreme court case number 2021-1518 or Ohio Disciplinary Online Docket case no. 2020-054, Available at the Ohio Supreme Court website.
The oral arguments are available in the archives of the Ohio Supreme Court website Live Stream. The hearing was held on April 12, 2021.
C. Ellen Connally is a retired judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court. From 2010 to 2014 she served as the President of the Cuyahoga County Council. An avid reader and student of American history, she serves on the Board of the Ohio History Connection, is currently vice president of the Cuyahoga County Soldiers and Sailors Monument Commission and past president of the Cleveland Civil War Round Table. She holds degrees from BGSU, CSU and is all but dissertation for a PhD from the University of Akron.
One Response to “COMMENTARY: Will the Menopause Defense Put Judge Carr in the Pink? by C. Ellen Connally”
Laura Kennelly
Amen. What a ridiculous, reckless, and destructive (for other women) defense. Thank you for pointing that out.