Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op. 25-03

OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative

e> Ohio Board of Professional Conduct

OPINION 2025-03
Issued June 13, 2025

Alteration of Judicial Decisions and Entries by Court Staff

SYLLABUS: A judge must maintain administrative control over the contents of any
written decision, opinion, judgment entry, or journal entry. Administrative control
includes ensuring that, after the judge has signed or approved the document for filing,
court staff do not make unilateral modifications to the document without the judge’s

further review and approval.

The Board recommends that the holding of this advisory opinion be applied

prospectively.

This nonbinding advisory opinion is issued by the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct
in response to a prospective or hypothetical question regarding the application of
ethics rules applicable to Ohio judges and lawyers. The Ohio Board of Professional
Conduct is solely responsible for the content of this advisory opinion, and the advice
contained in this opinion does not reflect and should not be construed as reflecting the
opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Questions regarding this advisory opinion
should be directed to the staff of the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct.

€> Ohio Board ot Professional Conduct

THOMAS J. MOYER OHIO JUDICIAL CENTER
65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 5™ FLOOR, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431
614.387.9370
www.bpc.ohio.gov

OPINION 2025-03
Issued June 13, 2025

Alteration of Judicial Decisions and Entries by Court Staff

SYLLABUS: A judge must maintain administrative control over the contents of any
written decision, opinion, judgment entry, or journal entry. Administrative control
includes ensuring that, after the judge has signed or approved the document for filing,
court staff do not make unilateral modifications to the document without the judge’s

further review and approval.

The Board recommends that the holding of this advisory opinion be applied

prospectively.
APPLICABLE RULES: Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.5, 2.7, 2.9, and 2.12.

QUESTION PRESENTED:

Whether a judge may encourage, condone, or ignore an internal court practice
whereby administrative staff make unilateral changes to a decision, opinion, judgment
entry, or journal entry after the judge has signed or otherwise approved the document

and before filing it with the clerk of court and releasing it to the parties and public?
ANALYSIS:

Judges issue written decisions, opinions, judgment entries, or journal entries,
hereinafter “judicial decisions or entries”, to memorialize their rulings. Once a judge
signs a judicial decision or entry, it serves as the judge’s final and full approval of the
document's content and legal effect. See e.g., Civ.R. 58(A). Most courts have one or more
staff members who participate in the editing, review, and proofreading of judicial
decisions or entries prior to filing or publication. An internal practice that permits court
staff to unilaterally make changes, even if well-intentioned or minor, to a judicial decision

or entry after judicial approval, risks the introduction of unauthorized or unreviewed

2
Op. 2025-03
changes that may misrepresent, alter, or even change the meaning of a judge's decision. Consequently, the unilateral modification of judicial decisions or entries by court staff, however minor, can implicate a judge's ethical obligations under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Upholding Public Confidence
Judges must uphold the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety. Jud.Cond.R. 1.2. Consequently, judges have an inherent administrative duty to ensure that internal procedures are followed for the issuance of their decisions and entries, including verification that the version filed or publicly released conforms to the document the judge originally approved. See Jud.Cond.R. 2.5 (a judge shall perform administrative duties competently and diligently). The discovery of modifications to a judicial decision or entry, undertaken without a judge's express approval, may give rise to an appearance of impropriety and undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. Such a situation may lead litigants and the public to reasonably question whether the decision or entry is reliable and reflects the judge's original decision. An independent and impartial judiciary requires judges to exercise the powers of the judicial office "without undue or unauthorized reliance on non-judges." NY Jud.Adv.Op. 18-04(B) (March 2018). A judge who knowingly permits staff to edit or change a decision, opinion, or entry, without the judge's subsequent review, or approval, risks eroding the public's confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the judge's decisions.
Responsibility to Decide
Two conduct rules obligate judges to reach decisions independently and without reliance on the judgment of others. Jud.Cond.R. 2.7 requires a judge to hear and decide all assigned matters unless disqualified, and Jud.Cond.R. 2.9(A)(3) permits a judge to consult with court staff or officials in fulfilling adjudicative responsibilities, provided the judge does not relinquish the duty to personally decide a matter. Substantive or even minor edits or changes made to a decision or entry during the drafting process are part of the core judicial decision-making process and are ultimately the judge's responsibility. However, if court staff unilaterally alters the substance of a signed decision and entry, after approval by the judge, and without his or her further review, the judge is ostensibly

Op. 2025-03 3

ceding a judicial function, contravening the requirement that the judge personally decide
a matter. Other jurisdictions have emphasized that “judicial functions”, as opposed to
ministerial tasks, cannot be delegated to court staff. For example, one jurisdiction advised
that a judge “may not delegate judicial decision-making” to court staff in response to a
question whether a judge must personally sign all documents which require the judge’s
signature and that involve an element of judicial discretion. NY Jud.Adv.Op. 89-142 (Jan.
1990).

Supervision of Court Staff

Jud.Cond.R. 2.12 requires a judge to ensure that court staff and others under the
judge’s direction and control act in a manner consistent with the judge’s obligations
under the Code. “A judge may not direct court personnel to engage in conduct on the
judge’s behalf or as the judge’s representative when such conduct would violate the Code
if undertaken by the judge.” Jud.Cond.R. 2.12, cmt. [1]. Accordingly, the judge may not
abdicate or delegate the responsibility for the final content of decisions and entries to
court staff. Encouraging or condoning staff-driven changes after formal judicial approval,
or failing to prevent such changes, interferes with the judge’s ethical duty to supervise
staff.

The Board recommends that the holding of this advisory opinion be applied

prospectively.