Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 87-023

The Supreme Court 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 87-023
Withdrawn by Adv. Op. 2025-07
[Former CJC Opinion-provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which is superseded by the
Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. 3/1/2009.]
[Not Current- subsequent rule amendments to Canons 1 through 6, Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. May 1, 1997]
SYLLABUS: During a campaign for judicial office it is unnecessary for an incumbent judge to
recuse himself from proceedings where his opponent represents one of the parties, unless the
judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The judge's impartiality is less likely to be
questioned where a member of his opponent's law firm represents one of the parties.
TO: Judge Phil W. Campbell, Van Wert Municipal Court
FROM: The Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline of the Judiciary
DATE: June 22, 1987
We have before us your request for our opinion on whether you, as incumbent judge, are
disqualified to hear cases in which your opponent in the upcoming election or the members of his
firm represent one of the parties. This issue was brought to your attention when your opponent sent
you a letter requesting that all cases involving himself and members of his firm be assigned to an
acting judge until the fall election. You are concerned that, given the small number of attorneys in
your area, your automatic disqualification for all cases involving members of your opponent's firm
would distort judicial administration in your county and cause undue expense to your city.

Op. 87-023 2
Whether or not you are disqualified from any proceeding in your court is determined under
the Code of Judicial Conduct (the "Code"). Under the Code, a judge should disqualify himself in a
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Code of Judicial Conduct
Canon 3C (1)(1982). The framers of the Code adopted this general policy for disqualification with
the intention that, "[a]ny conduct that would lead a reasonable person knowing all the
circumstances to the conclusion that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned is a
basis for the judge's disqualification." E. W. Thode, Reporter's Notes to Code of Judicial Conduct
60 (1973). In addition, any appearance of impropriety which raises reasonable questions
concerning the judge's impartiality would fall within the scope of the general standard set forth in
Canon 3C(1). Id. at 61.
In regard to your opponent requesting your recusal, we believe that decision should be made
by the person on the bench and not the person before the bench. In addition, we agree with the
ABA Committee's finding that nothing in the Code of Professional Responsibility prevents lawyers
from appearing before judges, where the judge has not disqualified himself. ABA Comm. on
Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Informal Op. 1306 (1974). Whether or not the attorney
represents his client for any reason is a matter decided by the individual attorney and his or her
client.
Based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that, as long as your impartiality as judge cannot
reasonably be questioned, it is proper for you to hear cases in which your opponent in the upcoming
judicial election or members of his firm are representing parties in the cases.
This opinion is advisory in nature, is based upon the facts as presented and is limited
to questions arising under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
James W. Mason, Esq.
Secretary,
Board of Commissioners
on Grievances & Discipline
of the Judiciary