Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 98-002

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

The Suprerre Caturt of Ohio

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804

OFFICE OF SECRETARY

OPINION 98-2
Issued April 3, 1998
Withdrawn by Adv. Op. 2025-01

SYLLABUS: It is improper under the privacy provisions of Goveming Bar Rule
V§11(E) for an attomey to state in an affidavit of disqualification of a judge that the
attomey has filed a disciplinary grievance against the judge when the grievance has not
been certified as a formal complaint. The rule protects the privacy of disciplinary matters
under investigation until there has been a finding of probable cause and certification of
the complaint by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. An attomey
is not prohibited from including in an affidavit of disqualification the facts underlying a
gnevance. An attomey may reveal the facts underlying a grievance for that is different
from revealing that a grievance has been filed.

OPINION: This opinion addresses whether it is proper under the privacy provisions of
Goveming Bar Rule V for an attomey to reveal in an affidavit of disqualification of a
judge that a gnevance has been filed by the attomey against the judge Under the
proposed facts, an attomey is a party in a proceeding before a judge. The attomey files a
gnevance against ajudge. The attomey also wants to file an affidavit of disqualification
of the judge. The attomey claims that revealing the gnevance in the affidavit is necessary
“to protect his or her right under the United States Constitution to an impartial
adjudicator.” The Board has no authority to opine on the requester’s concerns regarding

constitutional rights. The Board will advise upon the application of the disciplinary rule.

Does it violate the privacy provisions Goveming Bar Rule V § 11(E) for
an attomey to reveal in an affidavit of disqualification of a judge that the
attomey has filed a disciplinary grievance against the judge?

Privacy and confidentiality of disciplinary procedures are govemed under Rule V § 11(E)
of the Supreme Court Rules for the Govemment of the Bar of Ohio. The rule sets forth
What is private and what is public in disciplinary matters. All proceedings and
documents relating to an investigation of a gnevance are private. All certified formal
complaints and all subsequent proceedings are public, with the exception that
deliberations by the Board are confidential and its recommendations are private until filed
with the Supreme Court.

The demarcation between private and public occurs when a grievance is certified as a
formal complaint by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. A
gnevance is certified as a formal complaint upon two probable cause findings of
misconduct. The first finding is by an investigating body under Gov. Bar R. V § A(C).

Op. 98-2 2
The second finding is by a probable cause panel of the Board under Gov. Bar R. V §
6(A)and (D).
The rule balances competing concerns. It protects an individual’s privacy needs during
investigation of what may be an unsupported grievance, while promoting free flow of
information to the public on disciplinary matters in which there has been a determination
of probable cause of misconduct. The rule is set forth below.
Gov. Bar R. V § 11(E) Proceedings Private; Public.
(1) All proceedings and documents relating to review and
investigation of grievances made under these rules shall be
private except as follows:
(a) Where the respondent requests in writing that they be
public;
(b) Where the respondent voluntarily waives privacy of the
proceedings;
(c) Where the proceedings reveal reasonable cause to
believe that respondent is or may be addicted to alcohol
or other chemicals, or is abusing the use of alcohol or
other chemicals, in which event the information giving
rise to this belief shall be communicated to a committee
or subcommittee of a bar association, or to an executive
officer or employee of a non-profit corporation
established by a bar association, designed to assist
lawyers with substance abuse problems.
(2)(a) From the time a complaint has been certified to the Secretary
of the Board by a probable cause panel, the complaint and all
subsequent proceedings in connection with the complaint shall be
public; except that deliberations by the panel and deliberations by
the Board shall be confidential and the recommendations of the
Board shall be private until filed with the Supreme Court. The
Board-approved ADR process shall be confidential. Any
knowledge obtained by a mediator or facilitator shall be privileged
for all purposes under DR 1-103, provided the knowledge was
obtained while the mediator or facilitator was acting as a mediator
or facilitator.
(b) Proceedings by a Certified Grievance Committee and
Disciplinary Counsel shall be private until certified by a
probable cause panel; except that deliberations by a Certified

Op. 98-2 3
Grievance Committee, Disciplinary Counsel, panel, or Board
shall be confidential.
(c) As used in Section 11 of this rule, the terms “private” and
“confidential” shall have the following meanings:
(i) “Private” acknowledges the right of the respondent to
the right of privacy as to the proceedings relative to an
uncertified complaint, which may be waived by the
respondent as provided in Section 11(E)(1) of this rule.
(ii) “Confidential” acknowledges the oath of office of
Section 11(E)(3) of this rule, acknowledges the
necessity of confidentiality in the deliberative stage of
the proceedings of the Certified Grievance Committee,
Disciplinary Counsel, panel, and Board, and applies to
members and employees of the Certified Grievance
Committee, Disciplinary Counsel, panel, and Board,
such that deliberations cannot be disclosed or waived
by anyone for any reason.
(3) and (4) [omitted]
Affidavits of disqualification of judges of the courts of appeals or courts of common
pleas are filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio. See Ohio Const IV § 5(C), Ohio Rev.
Code Ann. §§ 2501.13, 2701.03 (Baldwin Supp. 1998). Some affidavits have included
statements by attorneys averring that a grievance has been filed against a judge. The
court has held that a judge is not disqualified solely because a party or counsel in a
pending case has filed a grievance against the judge. See In re Disqualification of
Kilpatrick, 47 Ohio St. 3d 605 (1989); In re Disqualification of Lorig: State of Ohio v.
Hurn (June 15, 1992), S.C. No. 92-AP-064, unreported; In re Disqualification of Walton:
Leonard v. Scioto/Lawrence Area Manpower Drug Task Force (Jan. 10, 1995), S.C. No.
94-AP-201, unreported.
In dismissing the affidavit in Kilpatrick the court commented briefly on confidentiality.
Complaints filed with the Disciplinary Counsel are, by rule, confidential at
the preliminary stage, and this court has no independent knowledge of
whether the claim that such a complaint has been filed is true.
A judge is presumed to be fair and impartial, and there is no evidence to
suggest that the filing of such a complaint, even if true, has affected or
would affect the conduct of this judge.
This court has previously held that a judge is not automatically
disqualified solely because a litigant in a pending case before the judge
has named that judge as a defendant in a separate action. In re

Op. 98-2 4
Disqualification of Hunter (1988), 36 Ohio St. 3d 607, 522 N.E. 2d 461.
It follows that a judge is not automatically disqualified solely because a
party in a case pending before him or her has filed a complaint against the
judge with Disciplinary Counsel or a similar body. To hold otherwise
would invite the filing of misconduct complaints solely to obtain a judge’s
disqualification, and “the orderly administration of judicial proceedings
would be severely hampered and thwarted * * *.” Smith v. Smith (App.
1977), 115 Ariz. 299, 303, 564 P. 2d 1266, 1270.
In dismissing the affidavit in Lorig, the court admonished the affiant regarding the rule of
privacy: “Affiant is reminded that Section 43 of Rule V of the Rules for the Government
of the Bar of Ohio [the predecessor of Gov. Bar R. V § 11(E)] requires that disciplinary
complaints remain private until and unless formal proceedings begin before the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.” In both Lorig and Walton the court
quoted from the Kilpatrick case that “[b]ecause complaints against judges and lawyers
are, by rule, confidential, this Court has no independent knowledge of whether a
complaint has been filed.”
The above cases did not rule on whether the privacy rule is violated if an attorney states
in an affidavit of prejudice that a grievance has been filed against the judge.
Nevertheless, those cases and the rule itself call for privacy of documents and
proceedings related to an investigation of a grievance. Attorneys are bound by the rules.
Grievances that are not certified as a formal complaint are intended to be private under
Ohio’s rules governing disciplinary procedure. An attorney should not reveal that a
grievance has been filed until the grievance has been certified as a formal complaint. An
attorney may reveal the facts underlying a grievance for that is different from revealing
that a grievance has been filed.
In conclusion, the Board advises that it is improper under the privacy provisions of
Governing Bar Rule V § 11(E) for an attorney to state in an affidavit of disqualification
of a judge that the attorney has filed a disciplinary grievance against the judge when the
grievance has not been certified as a formal complaint. The rule protects the privacy of
disciplinary matters under investigation until there has been a finding of probable cause
and certification of the complaint by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline. An attorney is not prohibited from including in an affidavit of
disqualification the facts underlying a grievance. An attorney may reveal the facts
underlying a grievance for that is different from revealing that a grievance has been filed.
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions
regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the
Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the
Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the
Attorney’s Oath of Office.

5
Op. 98-2