Case Title: In re Disqualification of Whitmore

Citation: 1998-Ohio-482

Docket Number: 1998AP093

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-09-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF WHITMORE. 
THE STATE EX REL. O’CONNOR v. DAVIS ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Whitmore (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Judge who is being represented by 
prosecuting attorney or Attorney General is required to recuse himself or 
herself from a pending case only where the attorney who is representing the 
judge is also appearing before the judge on behalf of another party — Board 
Advisory Opinion 89-034. 
(No. 98-AP-093 —  Decided September 15, 1998.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Summit County Court of Common Pleas 
case No. 98-06-2519. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification filed by defendant Tim 
Davis seeks the disqualification of Judge Beth Whitmore from further proceedings 
regarding the above-captioned case.  The plaintiff in the underlying case is the 
elected Prosecuting Attorney for Summit County. 
 
Affiant contends that Judge Whitmore should be disqualified from the 
underlying case because, until recently, she was represented by the plaintiff in an 
unrelated mandamus action that recently was decided by the Supreme Court.  See 
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Whitmore (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 61, 
697 N.E.2d 640.  This representation and Judge Whitmore’s failure to reveal it 
during earlier proceedings in this matter causes affiant to question Judge 
Whitmore’s impartiality and creates an appearance of impropriety that mandates 
her disqualification. 
 
While a judge must recuse himself or herself from a pending action where an 
attorney in that action is representing the judge in another proceeding, In re 
Disqualification of Badger (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 604, 546 N.E.2d 929, the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has modified this rule as it applies 
 
2
to prosecuting attorneys and the Attorney General, who are statutorily required to 
represent judges in their official capacity.  Board Advisory Opinion 89-034 (Nov. 
2, 1989), states that a judge who is being represented by the prosecuting attorney 
or Attorney General is required to recuse himself or herself from a pending case 
only where the attorney who is representing the judge also is appearing before the 
judge on behalf of another party.  In re Disqualification of DeWeese (1994), 74 
Ohio St.3d 1256, 657 N.E.2d 1357; and In re Disqualification of Spicer (Aug. 1, 
1997), No. 97-AP-087, unreported. 
 
Here, the materials submitted by the parties indicate that at no time did 
Prosecutor O’Connor represent Judge Whitmore in the mandamus action.  Rather, 
the case was assigned to an assistant prosecuting attorney who entered an 
appearance on behalf of Judge Whitmore and filed all briefs and pleadings on 
behalf of the judge in that action.  Accordingly, Advisory Opinion 89-034 and the 
cases cited above do not mandate Judge Whitmore’s disqualification from the 
underlying declaratory judgment action. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and is denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Whitmore.