Case Title: In re Disqualification of Sutula

Citation: 2016-Ohio-441

Docket Number: 15-AP-069

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-02-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Sutula, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-441.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF SUTULA. 
CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES v. HUMMER. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Sutula, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-441.] 
Judges—Affidavits 
of 
disqualification—R.C. 
2701.03—Affiant 
failed 
to 
demonstrate bias or prejudice—Disqualification denied. 
(No. 15-AP-069—Decided September 14, 2015.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
Pleas Case No. CV-14-824290. 
____________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Caryn Groedel, attorney for plaintiff, has filed an affidavit with the 
clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge John Sutula from 
presiding over any further proceedings in the above-captioned breach-of-contract 
case, which Groedel brought on behalf of her law firm against a former client. 
{¶ 2} Groedel claims that Judge Sutula has “repeatedly demonstrated his 
inability to be fair and impartial” to her and her law firm.  Judge Sutula has 
responded in writing to the affidavit, stating that he does not have any bias against 
any party in the underlying case.  For the reasons explained below, no basis has 
been established to order the disqualification of Judge Sutula. 
{¶ 3} First, Groedel’s primary complaint is that Judge Sutula is biased 
against her because he has denied almost all of her motions but granted all of 
defendant’s motions.  Specifically, Groedel avers that the judge has repeatedly 
abused his discretion by allowing defendant to submit filings out of time and in 
violation of the civil rules and discovery orders.  It is well settled, however, that a 
litigant’s dissatisfaction with a court’s legal rulings, even if those rulings are 
erroneous, is not grounds for disqualification.  In re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Ohio St.3d 1217, 2003-Ohio-7351, 803 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 4.  Procedures exist by which 
appellate courts may review—and, if necessary, correct—rulings made by trial 
courts, but reviewing alleged legal errors is not the role of the chief justice in 
deciding an affidavit of disqualification.  Further, a party is not entitled to a certain 
number of favorable rulings, and a judge must be free to make rulings without the 
apprehension that a disproportionate number of rulings in favor of one party will 
create the impression of bias toward that party or against its adversary.  In re 
Disqualification of Lawson, 135 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2012-Ohio-6337, 986 N.E.2d 6, 
¶ 7. 
{¶ 4} Second, Groedel claims that Judge Sutula disrespected her at a recent 
pretrial conference when he showed her co-counsel a newspaper article about a 
local attorney who had been disciplined for professional misconduct and indicated 
that he might have to “report” Groedel for similar misconduct.  According to 
Groedel, Judge Sutula’s suggestion that she may have engaged in inappropriate 
conduct was based on “unsubstantiated allegations” from defendant.  In response 
to Groedel’s allegations, Judge Sutula summarized the circumstances and 
statements in the record that led him to caution Groedel’s co-counsel that he might 
have a duty to report Groedel to disciplinary authorities. 
{¶ 5} In general, a judge’s disqualification is not warranted merely because 
the judge files a grievance against a lawyer in a pending case.  See In re 
Disqualification of Lynch, 135 Ohio St.3d 1277, 2013-Ohio-910, 986 N.E.2d 1000, 
¶ 5.  Indeed, judges have the duty to inform the appropriate authorities when they 
have knowledge that an attorney has violated a disciplinary rule raising a question 
regarding the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.  See 
Jud.Cond.R. 2.15(B).  Thus, the fact that Judge Sutula cautioned Groedel’s co-
counsel that if certain allegations were true he may have a duty to report Groedel, 
does not show that he is biased against her. 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 6} “A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to be biased, and the 
appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome these 
presumptions.”  In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2003-Ohio-
5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5.  Those presumptions have not been overcome in this 
case. 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, the affidavit of disqualification is denied.  The case may 
proceed before Judge Sutula. 
________________________