Judge admits statements were misleading, inaccurate, unsupported by record
The Supreme Court of Ohio has publicly reprimanded a judge for professional misconduct in connection with social media posts relating to a pending guardianship case. These statements were found inaccurate, inappropriate, and inflammatory.
A judge of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division was implicated in the handling of a guardianship and conservatorship case that predated his tenure. This case involved an 83-year-old widow who had three adult children.
In 2014, the court deemed the widow incompetent, terminated the conservatorship, and appointed the attorney who had served as her conservator as her guardian. In 2015, the court appointed another attorney as successor guardian. Over the years, two of the widow’s children raised numerous complaints about the appointed guardian and the guardianship process in general.
In January 2019, a reporter inquired about the guardianship case. The judge authorized an assistant court administrator under his supervision to respond to public inquiries. The administrator informed the reporter that the widow had been removed from her home due to “a squalid, unsafe living environment” and that her son “was not properly caring for her.”
In October 2022, the widow’s son posted on the court’s Facebook page a comment criticizing a magistrate involved in the case. The judge’s response to this comment accused the son of failing to take care of his mother and letting her live in deplorable conditions. The judge’s response also claimed that a neighbour called senior services and that the widow was a victim of elder abuse.
The record of the guardianship case showed that the actual reason for the widow’s relocation to an assisted living facility was her guardian’s belief that she would benefit from better supervision and the activities available there.
At the disciplinary proceeding, the judge stipulated that his and the assistant court administrator’s statements were misleading, inaccurate, and unsupported by the case record. He also admitted that he failed to refresh his memory about the facts of the case before making the replies on social media.
In Ohio State Bar Association v. Winkler, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the recommendation by the Board of Professional Conduct to publicly reprimand the judge.
The board found clear and convincing evidence that the judge violated numerous provisions of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. These violations included making public statements that could impact the outcome or the fairness of pending matters and failing to promote public confidence in the judiciary's independence, integrity, and impartiality.
The board deemed the judge’s multiple offences, as well as the vulnerability of the victims and the harm caused by the misconduct, to be aggravating factors.
The board also accepted the presence of mitigating factors, including the judge’s previously clean disciplinary record, evidence supporting his good character and reputation, his cooperation during the disciplinary process, and his prompt actions in removing the Facebook posts. The board noted that the judge acknowledged his misconduct and apologized to the son.
