Case Title: In re Disqualification of Corrigan

Citation: 2004-Ohio-7354

Docket Number: 04AP083

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-09-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 105 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2004-Ohio-7354.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CORRIGAN. 
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF MUEHRCKE. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 105 Ohio St.3d 1243, 
2004-Ohio-7354.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification denied, when. 
(No. 04-AP-083 — Decided September 14, 2004.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
Pleas, Probate Division, case No. 2001-GDM-54818. 
____________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
Robert Muehrcke and Laura Muehrcke, two of the parties in a 
long-running probate matter, have filed affidavits with the Clerk of this court 
under R.C. 2701.03 and 2101.39, seeking the disqualification of Judge John E. 
Corrigan from acting on any further proceedings in case No. 2001-GDM-54818 in 
the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Probate Division.  Appended to 
affiants’ affidavits are several other affidavits of various attorneys in that case. 
{¶2} 
The affiants contend that Judge Corrigan made disparaging 
remarks to the attorneys at pretrial conferences in July 2004, allegedly referring 
derisively to the expensive clothing and wristwatch worn by attorney Vincent 
Stafford, and referring to attorney Attilio Lepri and others as “jackasses.”  The 
judge also had attorney Lepri forcibly removed from the judge’s chambers, 
according to the affidavits, and held a baseball bat while berating the lawyers. 
{¶3} 
The affidavits also state that Judge Corrigan told the attorneys at a 
pretrial conference how he would ultimately decide the case, though he had not 
yet heard testimony from the parties.  In addition, the affidavits allege that the 
judge held Robert Muehrcke in contempt and fined him $1,500 without holding a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
hearing and also granted attorney fees to the guardian for the Muehrckes’ minor 
child without allowing the Muehrckes to contest the amount of the fees. 
{¶4} 
Finally, affiant Robert Muehrcke alleges that the judge is a close 
friend of Robert Housel, who filed a motion to intervene in the case in July 2003.  
The judge granted the motion in July 2004, and affiant Robert Muehrcke alleges 
that the judge’s friendship with Housel might affect the fairness and impartiality 
of any court rulings in the case. 
{¶5} 
Judge Corrigan has responded to the affidavits, and he denies 
holding any feelings of bias or prejudice against the Muehrckes or their attorneys.  
He does fault Robert Muehrcke for delaying the case and for failing to cooperate 
with discovery demands, but the judge contends that he remains focused on the 
goal of resolving the case fairly and justly.  Judge Corrigan also denies that he has 
a personal relationship with attorney Housel that might interfere with the judge’s 
impartiality. 
{¶6} 
Attached to Judge Corrigan’s response is an affidavit by attorney 
Richard Koblentz, the lawyer for the Muehrckes’ minor daughter, Susan.  He 
states that Judge Corrigan used the term “jackasses” and referred to a “crowbar” 
when decrying the slowness with which some parties approach discovery and 
while explaining the judge’s role in forcing the parties to get moving.  The judge 
also, according to the Koblentz affidavit, joked with the attorneys about the 
expensive clothing and jewelry that domestic-relations attorneys wear.  Koblentz 
did not find the comments offensive, and he labels the remarks described in the 
affidavits of disqualification as “few” and “isolated” and not indicative of bias or 
prejudice. 
{¶7} 
Attorney Alan Petrov has submitted an affidavit also.  Petrov 
represents Robert Housel, the Muehrckes’ former attorney.  Petrov supports the 
version of events described by attorney Koblentz, and he says that Judge Corrigan 
January Term, 2004 
3 
never held a baseball bat or threatened anyone with one during the July pretrial 
conferences. 
{¶8} 
After careful review of the nine affidavits filed in this case, as well 
as the judge’s response, I find no basis for ordering the disqualification of Judge 
Corrigan.  To be sure, the attorneys remember differently the events that occurred 
at the two July pretrial conferences, and the incidents described in some of the 
affidavits are troubling.  In the wake of the conflicting stories presented by the 
various affiants, however, I cannot conclude that the judge is clearly biased and 
prejudiced, and certainly the judge himself states that he can resolve the case 
fairly and impartially. 
{¶9} 
Some of the complaining affiants’ objections turn on their 
disagreement with the judge’s rulings on motions in recent weeks.  That aspect of 
the case is easily resolved, for a party’s disagreement or dissatisfaction with a 
court’s rulings of law, without more, does not demonstrate bias or prejudice.  In 
re Disqualification of Murphy (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 605, 522 N.E.2d 459.  I 
recognize that the affiants’ allegations extend beyond their objections to the 
judge’s rulings, but at least on that latter issue, their concerns are not ones that an 
affidavit of disqualification can remedy.  See In re Disqualification of Solovan, 
100 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2003-Ohio-5484, 798 N.E.2d 3, ¶ 4 (an affidavit of 
disqualification “is not a vehicle to contest matters of substantive or procedural 
law”). 
{¶10} The judge’s use of the word “jackasses” when evidently referring 
to attorneys who behave foolishly or who resolve cases too slowly was 
unfortunate, and his reference to the clothing and jewelry worn by some attorneys 
who practice in the domestic-relations field was unnecessary.  As Canon 3(B)(4) 
of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct says, judges should be “patient, dignified, 
and courteous” when speaking with litigants, lawyers, and others in an official 
capacity, and Canon 3(B)(5) of the Code admonishes judges to refrain from any 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
words or conduct that might manifest bias or prejudice based on socioeconomic 
status and other improper factors.  Judges are certainly entitled to express 
dissatisfaction with attorneys’ dilatory tactics inside and outside the courtroom, 
but that dissatisfaction can and should be expressed in a way that promotes public 
confidence in the integrity, dignity, and impartiality of the judiciary.  And 
remarks — even those made in jest — about attorneys’ clothing are probably best 
left unsaid by judges during official proceedings. 
{¶11} Despite those concerns, I am satisfied that the judge’s words and 
actions do not reflect bias or prejudice, and they would not cause a reasonable and 
objective observer to harbor serious doubts about the judge’s impartiality in this 
case.  The judge’s choice of words may not have been the best, and his reaction to 
statements made by others during the pretrial conferences may not have been 
ideal, but I do not see information in any of the affidavits suggesting that the 
judge is unable to decide the remaining issues in the case fairly and impartially.  
He has expressed his willingness to hear relevant evidence on the unsettled issues 
in the case, and he denies that his social familiarity with attorney Housel will 
affect his judgment about the merits of the issues still to be decided.  In light of 
the differing recollections of those who were actually present for the two pretrial 
conferences, and in light of the judge’s assurances, I conclude that Judge Corrigan 
should remain on the case. 
{¶12} As I said recently, “[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. 
{¶13} For the reasons stated above, the affidavits of disqualification are 
denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Corrigan. 
___________________