Case Title: In re Disqualification of Rothgery

Citation: 2005-Ohio-7152

Docket Number: 05AP046

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-05-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Rothgery, 117 Ohio St.3d 1250, 2005-Ohio-7152.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF ROTHGERY. 
LORAIN COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH v. DIEWALD. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Rothgery,  
117 Ohio St.3d 1250, 2005-Ohio-7152.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification denied. 
(No. 05AP-046—Decided May 19, 2005.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Lorain County  
Court of Common Pleas Case No. 04-CV-139806. 
____________________ 
Reporter’s Note:  The previously published version of this opinion  
omitted a complete citation that has been added to this version of  
the opinion.  This version of the opinion supersedes the version  
that appears at 110 Ohio St.3d 1216, 850 N.E.2d 719. 
____________________ 
 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Defendant John Diewald, a.k.a. Chu Bbakka, has filed an affidavit 
with the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking the disqualification of 
Judge Christopher R. Rothgery from acting on any further proceedings in case 
No. 04-CV-139806 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lorain County. 
{¶ 2} Diewald states that the judge is a partner in a law firm that has 
represented Diewald since last July and that the judge’s association with that firm 
justifies his disqualification from this case. 
{¶ 3} Judge Rothgery has responded to the affidavit in writing, and he 
states that he took office in January 2005.  He acknowledges that an associate of 
his in his former law firm did represent defendant Diewald in 2004, but the judge 
denies that he ever discussed that case with the associate during the 
representation, and he states that it was unrelated to the case now before him. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} I find no basis for ordering the disqualification of Judge Rothgery.  
To be sure, “[a] judge shall not practice law,” according to Canon 4(F) of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct.  I am confident that Judge Rothgery has taken all 
appropriate steps to separate himself from his former law firm and the practice of 
law since assuming the bench.  And in light of the judge’s assurances that he 
himself did not represent the defendant in this or any prior legal matters, I 
conclude that disqualification is not warranted.  Prior representation of a party by 
a judge or his former law firm on matters wholly unrelated to matters presently 
pending before the judge does not mandate judicial disqualification, absent a 
specific showing of actual bias on the part of the judge.  Flamm, Judicial 
Disqualification (1996) 319-320, Section 11.3.  See Natl. Auto Brokers Corp. v. 
Gen. Motors Corp. (C.A.2, 1978), 572 F.2d 953, 958 (the “prior representation of 
a party by a judge or his firm with regard to a matter unrelated to litigation before 
him does not automatically require recusal”); Mustafoski v. State (Alaska 
App.1994), 867 P.2d 824, 832 (“unless there is a specific showing of bias, a judge 
is not disqualified merely because he or she worked as a lawyer for or against a 
party in a previous, unrelated matter”). 
{¶ 5} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Rothgery. 
______________________