Case Title: In re Disqualification of Maloney

Citation: 1999-Ohio-10

Docket Number: 1999AP090

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-11-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Maloney, 88 Ohio St.3d 1215, 1999-Ohio-10.] 
 
 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF MALONEY. 
IN RE ESTATE OF MUSSER. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Maloney (1999), 88 Ohio St.3d 1215.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Cooperation by judge with appropriate 
officials in the investigation of alleged criminal and ethical misconduct on 
the part of an attorney will not result in disqualification of that judge from 
cases in which that attorney may be participating. 
(No. 99-AP-090 — Decided November 2, 1999.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Mahoning County Probate Court case No. 
1999 CI 00026. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification and supplemental affidavit 
filed by Richard Goldberg and his attorney, J. Gerald Ingram, who is representing 
affiant Goldberg in various proceedings before Judge Timothy P. Maloney, seek 
the disqualification of Judge Maloney from the above-referenced case and 
additional cases in which Goldberg served as counsel of record or participated in as 
an attorney or litigant.  On September 10, 1999, the Supreme Court imposed an 
interim remedial suspension from the practice of law against Goldberg pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(5a).  See In re Goldberg (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1480, 716 N.E.2d 
213.  The interim remedial suspension was predicated on allegations that Goldberg 
 
 
2
had engaged in disciplinary violations that posed a substantial threat of serious 
harm to the public. 
 
Affiants make numerous allegations that Judge Maloney harbors a bias and 
prejudice against Goldberg that is driven by “personal hatred and revenge.”  
Having considered these allegations, Judge Maloney’s response to them, and a 
confidential affidavit filed on October 29, 1999 by the Disciplinary Counsel in 
response to certain actions attributed to the Disciplinary Counsel by Goldberg, I do 
not conclude that Judge Maloney is biased or prejudiced against Goldberg or that 
his disqualification is warranted.  Judge Maloney’s actions in the underlying cases 
appear to have been taken in an attempt to comply with his duties as judge of the 
probate division of the court of common pleas to oversee the administration of 
estates and guardianships.  The adverse orders referenced by affiants are subject to 
review on appeal and are not grounds for disqualification.  See In re 
Disqualification of Murphy (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 605, 522 N.E.2d 459. 
 
In executing his responsibilities, Judge Maloney has cooperated with law 
enforcement, disciplinary authorities, and his colleagues in other courts in which 
Goldberg appeared as counsel of record.  While affiants may view Judge 
Maloney’s actions as prejudicial, they appear to be consistent with his statutory 
duties and obligations under the Code of Judicial Conduct.  The mere fact that a 
judge cooperates with appropriate officials in the investigation of alleged criminal 
 
 
3
and ethical misconduct on the part of an attorney will not result in disqualification 
of that judge from cases in which that attorney may be participating as counsel, a 
party, or otherwise. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and denied.  The cases shall proceed before Judge Maloney.  Upon request of the 
Disciplinary Counsel, the confidential affidavit filed by the Disciplinary Counsel 
on October 29, 1999, shall remain sealed until further order.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(11)(E).