There will be many changes in Cleveland City Hall with the new administration of Mayor Justin Bibb and Law Director Mark Griffin. I hope that one of them will be to reassess the current policy of the payment of legal fees for judges accused of wrongdoing.
In September of 2020, the Disciplinary Counsel of the Ohio Supreme Court, the body that monitors the conduct of Ohio judges and lawyers, filed a complaint against Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Pinkey Carr. The complaint alleges multiple acts of misconduct, including allegations that Judge Carr disregarded an order from the Presiding and Administrative Judge to halt court proceeding during the current pandemic and other areas of inappropriate conduct during court proceedings.
After numerous pre-trial motions, briefs and hearings, in October there was a trial before a panel appointed by the Ohio Supreme Court. A recommendation was made on December 10, 2021, that Judge Carr’s law license be suspended for two years, a finding that would remove her from the bench. The matter is currently before the justices of the Supreme Court who can accept the recommendation, amend it, or reject it. A ruling should be forthcoming in the next several months.
No matter what the final decision of the Supreme Court, the taxpayers of the City of Cleveland are out a substantial amount of money for Judge Carr’s defense. She was, by the way, paid her full salary while the action was pending, even during a period when the Chief Justice had removed her from the hearing of criminal cases.
CoolCleveland readers may recall that back in 2015 I wrote about the legal fees amassed by former Cleveland Municipal Judge Angela Stokes. Over a two-year period, Stokes, with a blank check from the Law Department of the City of Cleveland, went through several sets of lawyers and managed to amass legal fees north of $1.5 million dollars. All paid for by you and me the taxpayers.
On December 30, 2021, the Disciplinary Counsel of the Ohio Supreme Court filed charges against Common Pleas Court Judge Daniel Gaul. The difference between what happens in the proceedings against Judge Gaul and Judge Carr will have a significant impact on taxpayers. Judge Gaul will not have a blank check from the county for the payment of legal fees. Common pleas court judges have an insurance policy through the Ohio Supreme Court. A provision of the policy specifically states that “only in the event that the allegation brought against you are dismissed or discontinued without any fault or guilt on our part” will the insurance company compensate the judge for their legal fees. In other words, if the judge is found to have acted improperly, he or she must pay their own legal fees. That’s a big incentive to admit wrongdoing, settle or handle the matter in an expeditious and timely matter.
A good example is former Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Deborah O’Neil. Back in 2005 she was accused of several acts of misconduct. She fought the case, went to trial, and was ultimately suspended from the practice of law and removed from the bench. Because of the guilty finding, the insurance company refused to pay and she was liable for legal fees in the amount of $587,000 plus the cost of the proceedings of $48,000.
Several states make no provisions for providing a legal defense fund for judges when charged with judicial misconduct. The state of Louisiana recently passed a law that requires judges convicted of misconduct or who resign while disciplinary proceedings are pending to pay for the cost of the investigation and court cost relating to the charges against them. They also require the judge to pay for the cost of any visiting or acting judges who must be brought in to cover their dockets while they cannot serve.
The current policy in Cleveland is based on the premise that a municipal court judge is an employee of the city and is entitled to legal representation in cases where claims are made against them in the course of their employment as a judge. This is sound policy. Wrongfully accused judges should not be forced to pay legal fees for the defense of claims against them. But no one should be given a blank check for the taxpayer’s money.
Lawyers who represent members of the legal profession in cases of ethical and professional violations are engaged in a very specialized area of the law. They do not come cheap and preparation for hearings and trials require hours of research and review of records. For example, the original complaint against Judge Carr was 21 pages long and referenced actions by the judge against multiple defendants, on multiple dates, and long hours of video transcripts of court proceedings, all of which must be reviewed by counsel in addition to legal research and trial preparation.
The law department should set a policy that monitors these legal fees. Perhaps there should be a cap on the amount spent on each case, and if costs exceeds that cap, then there should be specific authorization and explanation as to why the expenditures are necessary. There is also the possibility of purchasing supplemental insurance coverage available through the Ohio State Bar Association.
As public officials judges are entitled to the best representation possible in legal cases that arise from the course of their employment. But they should not be given a blank check. They should be made to take into consideration the cost of their defense, as a normal citizen would if engaged in a lawsuit.
The $1.5 million dollars spent on defending Judge Stokes, who ultimately resigned from the bench, could have gone a long way to help people in the City of Cleveland. She walked away without paying a dime, even though she was paid her full salary while the action was pending, even when she was removed from hearing cases.
Now taxpayers are facing another big legal bill for Judge Carr. If the Supreme Court adopts the recommendation of the panel for a suspension, she will be off the bench and, as the current policy stands, not responsible for any of the legal fees that she incurred. That just doesn’t seem fair. The policy for common pleas court judges and of other states which provide that a judge found culpable for acts of misconduct must pay their own legal fees sounds fair to me.
I hope that the new administration will consider some change in the current policy for the sake of the taxpayers. The blank check policy must be amended. It might also change the way some judges react when charges are brought against them. Bad judges not only render bad judgements, but they also cost taxpayers big money.
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 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.
2 Responses to “COMMENTARY: The Cost of Judicial Misconduct by C. Ellen Connally”
Kimberly F. Brown
Excellent commentary. Thank you for sharing.
Pamela Patrick
Thank you Judge Connally for your words of true, let’s hope they help our pockets