Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Goulding

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4588

Docket Number: 2020-0738

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-09-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Goulding, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4588.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-4588 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GOULDING. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Goulding, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-4588.] 
Judges—Misconduct—Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct—Conditionally 
stayed six-month suspension. 
(No. 2020-0738—Submitted July 22, 2020—Decided September 29, 2020.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2020-007. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Judge Michael Robert Goulding, of Toledo, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0066071, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1996.  He has been a judge of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, General 
Division, since August 26, 2013. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} In a February 18, 2020 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, 
alleged that Goulding engaged in judicial misconduct by interfering in a case 
assigned to another judge involving the incarcerated boyfriend of the daughter of 
Goulding’s friends, engaging in ex parte communications with the boyfriend, and 
orchestrating the boyfriend’s release on a recognizance bond two days before his 
scheduled arraignment. 
{¶ 3} Based on the parties’ stipulations and the evidence presented at a 
hearing before a panel of the Board of Professional Conduct, the board found that 
Goulding committed the charged misconduct and recommends that he be 
suspended from the practice of law for six months with the entire suspension 
stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended 
sanction. 
Facts and Misconduct 
{¶ 5} On February 8, 2019, a Lucas County grand jury indicted C.G. on 
three second-degree felony counts of illegal use of a minor in a nudity-oriented 
performance.  On Friday, February 15, C.G. was arrested and held without bail in 
the Lucas County Jail. 
{¶ 6} On Sunday, February 17, longtime friends of Goulding summoned 
him to their home to assist them with an emergency.  Upon his arrival, the friends 
informed Goulding that their daughter had locked herself in her room following 
C.G.’s arrest.  Interpreting their request for assistance to be “a quest for 
information” regarding C.G.’s status and current whereabouts, Goulding used his 
cell phone to call the Lucas County Pretrial Services Department.  Although it is 
not clear whether Goulding identified himself by name or title, his phone number 
was in the department’s Caller ID system.  Goulding therefore stipulated that the 
officer who answered his call knew his identity as a common pleas court judge.  
After confirming that C.G. remained in custody, Goulding asked the officer about 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
the pending charges.  The officer informed him that C.G. had been charged with 
several felony counts of illegal use of a minor in a nudity-oriented performance. 
{¶ 7} Rather than end the call after he obtained the information his friends 
were seeking, Goulding asked the officer whether the department had prepared a 
public-safety assessment (a tool designed to assess a defendant’s flight risk and 
likelihood of engaging in criminal activity while charges are pending).  The 
officer confirmed that an assessment had been prepared and stated that the 
recommendation was to release C.G. on a recognizance bond and prohibit him 
from having contact with the alleged victim.  In addition, the officer informed 
Goulding that C.G. was on probation for an aggravated-menacing conviction in 
the Maumee Municipal Court but that due to an issue with that court’s website, he 
could not obtain any other information about that offense. 
{¶ 8} The officer informed Goulding that C.G.’s case was assigned to 
Judge Joseph McNamara, another judge of the Lucas County Court of Common 
Pleas, General Division, and was scheduled for arraignment on Tuesday, February 
19.  Nevertheless, Goulding ordered a recognizance bond with a no-contact order, 
allowing for C.G.’s immediate release. 
{¶ 9} At some point during the evening, Goulding learned the identity of 
an attorney who might be representing C.G. in the pending case. 
{¶ 10} Meanwhile, the daughter of Goulding’s friends had been speaking 
with C.G. on her cell phone.  Upon learning that Goulding had orchestrated 
C.G.’s release, the daughter handed the phone to Goulding, who spoke directly 
with C.G. and informed him that he would be released in about an hour.  He 
instructed C.G. to “sit tight” until his parents arrived, and he told C.G. that he 
would have to appear before Judge McNamara on February 19.  C.G. replied, 
“Thank you,” to which Goulding responded, “Do you have any questions?”  C.G. 
stated that he did not and once again thanked Goulding. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 11} After handing the phone back to his friends’ daughter, Goulding 
sent a text message to the attorney who was thought to be representing C.G., 
advising him that Goulding had set a recognizance bond with a no-contact order.  
Later that evening, the attorney responded to confirm his representation and thank 
Goulding for his assistance. 
{¶ 12} After C.G. discussed his anticipated release with his father, C.G. 
called the daughter of Goulding’s friends.  Meanwhile, Goulding’s friends 
informed Goulding that the alleged victim of C.G.’s offenses (who was 
significantly younger than C.G.) had sent nude photographs of herself to C.G. and 
that C.G. had been expelled from two schools for drug-related behavior.  
Goulding began to have second thoughts about setting the bond and permitting 
C.G. to be released before his scheduled arraignment. 
{¶ 13} Unable to obtain additional information about C.G.’s aggravated-
menacing conviction from the Maumee Municipal Court’s website on his 
smartphone, Goulding took the phone from his friends’ daughter and spoke with 
C.G. a second time.  He began the conversation by asking C.G. whether his 
aggravated-menacing conviction involved the same victim, and C.G. assured him 
that it did not.  Goulding then asked C.G. a series of questions about the facts 
underlying the charges pending against him. 
{¶ 14} Later that evening, the Lucas County Jail released C.G. on a 
recognizance bond pursuant to Goulding’s order.  Without Goulding’s 
involvement, C.G. would have been held without bail until his arraignment 
scheduled for two days later. 
{¶ 15} On the day of C.G.’s scheduled arraignment, Goulding left a 
voicemail message for Judge McNamara, informing him that he had set bond in 
C.G.’s case, and Judge McNamara left that bond intact.  However, Goulding did 
not inform C.G.’s counsel that he had engaged in ex parte communications with 
C.G. and that he may have learned information that was material to the case.  Nor 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
did he inform the prosecutor’s office that he had engaged in ex parte 
communications with C.G. and his counsel, that he had set the bond in C.G.’s 
case, or that C.G. had been released from jail. 
{¶ 16} While preparing discovery in C.G.’s case, a Lucas County assistant 
prosecutor listened to C.G.’s jail calls and recognized Goulding’s voice.  The 
assistant prosecutor informed his supervisor of Goulding’s communications with 
C.G. and notified Goulding that he would be listed as a state’s witness in the case.  
Goulding contacted his personal counsel and then self-reported his misconduct to 
relator on April 15, 2019.  He later waived his right to an independent 
determination of probable cause by the board. 
{¶ 17} In May 2019, C.G. pleaded guilty to four first-degree 
misdemeanors—disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, criminal mischief, 
telecommunications harassment, and theft.  In exchange for his pleas, the state 
dismissed the three second-degree felony counts of illegal use of a minor in a 
nudity-oriented performance.  The parties have stipulated that Goulding’s 
communication with C.G. did not impact the final disposition of the case. 
{¶ 18} The parties stipulated and the board found that Goulding’s conduct 
violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 (requiring a judge at all times to act in a manner that 
promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the 
judiciary and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety) and 2.9(A) 
(generally prohibiting a judge from initiating, receiving, permitting, or 
considering ex parte communications).  Although the parties agreed to dismiss an 
alleged violation of Jud.Cond.R. 1.3 (prohibiting a judge from abusing the 
prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the 
judge or others), the board found that without Goulding’s personal intervention on 
behalf of his friends, C.G. would not have been released from jail two days before 
his scheduled arraignment.  Accordingly, the board found that Goulding’s conduct 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
represented an obvious abuse of his judicial office that falls squarely within the 
conduct prohibited by the rule. 
{¶ 19} We adopt the board’s findings that Goulding’s conduct violates 
Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 1.3, and 2.9(A). 
Stipulated Sanction 
{¶ 20} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 21} Contrary to the parties’ stipulation to a lack of aggravating factors, 
the board found that at least two aggravating factors are present.  First, Goulding 
committed multiple rule violations.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4).  In addition to 
finding that Goulding committed all three of the charged rule violations, the board 
noted that his conduct also appears to violate Jud.Cond.R. 2.9(C) (prohibiting a 
judge from independently investigating facts in a matter) and 2.4(B) (prohibiting a 
judge from permitting family, social, political, financial, or other interests or 
relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment). 
{¶ 22} The second aggravating factor found by the board was that 
Goulding exhibited an attitude of denial.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(7).  Even after 
admitting that his conduct was wrong and that it violates two judicial-conduct 
rules, he downplayed his offenses and failed to offer any plausible explanations 
for his misconduct.  Although he knew that he would be violating the rule 
prohibiting ex parte communication by talking to C.G., he testified that he went 
ahead and engaged in the first conversation with C.G. because it was “simply 
ministerial” and the violation would be “de minimis and inconsequential.”  He 
claimed that he engaged in the second ex parte communication with C.G. only 
because the additional information provided by his friends had raised concerns 
that his decision to set the recognizance bond may have been ill-advised.  At his 
January Term, 2020 
 
7
disciplinary hearing, Goulding maintained that he did not initiate either of the ex 
parte communications with C.G.—even though he had stipulated that he “took the 
phone” from his friends’ daughter to ask C.G. about his aggravated-menacing 
conviction and then proceeded to question C.G. about the charges pending against 
him. 
{¶ 23} When asked why he went above and beyond obtaining and 
transmitting the publicly available information about C.G.’s status as requested by 
his friends, Goulding stated that he “guess[ed]” he had acted out of “habit” when 
he took it upon himself to interfere in another judge’s case by setting bail and 
securing the defendant’s release from jail before his scheduled arraignment.  He 
insisted that C.G.’s release benefitted the jail by making a bed available—though 
he presented no evidence that the jail was overcrowded at that particular time.  
And although Goulding self-reported his conduct to relator, the board found that 
he would not have made that report if the assistant prosecutor had not informed 
Goulding that he had discovered the recorded ex parte communications and 
identified Goulding as a potential witness in C.G.’s case.  On these facts, the 
board was not convinced that Goulding appreciated the gravity and 
inappropriateness of his conduct. 
{¶ 24} As for mitigating factors, the board adopted the parties’ stipulations 
that Goulding had no prior discipline, had demonstrated a cooperative attitude 
toward the disciplinary proceedings, and had presented more than 20 letters 
attesting to his good character and positive reputation in his community.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (5).  Unable to discern the motive for 
Goulding’s actions, the board declined to adopt the parties’ stipulation that he had 
acted without a dishonest or selfish motive. 
{¶ 25} The parties jointly recommend that Goulding be publicly 
reprimanded for his misconduct.  The board considered six cases cited by the 
parties in support of that sanction and several others in which we imposed six-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
month suspensions—with or without conditional stays—on members of the 
judiciary who had engaged in similar misconduct. 
{¶ 26} The board suggested that Goulding’s misconduct is perhaps most 
closely aligned with that in Disciplinary Counsel v. Stuard, 121 Ohio St.3d 29, 
2009-Ohio-261, 901 N.E.2d 788—a case in which we publicly reprimanded a 
judge who had engaged in ex parte communications with an assistant prosecutor 
whom he had asked to prepare a sentencing opinion in a death-penalty case.  
Although Stuard had violated two canons of the former Code of Judicial Conduct 
comparable to Goulding’s violations of Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 and 2.9(A) and had 
presented the same mitigating factors that Goulding has established here, there 
were no aggravating factors present in Stuard’s case.  Citing the three aggravating 
factors present here, the board believes that Goulding’s conduct warrants a 
sanction more severe than a public reprimand. 
{¶ 27} On the other hand, the board found that the two cases in which we 
imposed on judges six-month suspensions with no stay are distinguishable from 
this case.  One of those judges had engaged in dishonest conduct by issuing a 
judgment entry falsely stating that the prosecutor had dismissed a speeding case 
against the judge’s personal attorney and then engaged in ex parte 
communications in an effort to conceal his actions.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Hale, 141 Ohio St.3d 518, 2014-Ohio-5053, 26 N.E.3d 785.  The other judge, 
who had repeatedly and inappropriately injected himself into his daughter’s 
speeding case and made disparaging remarks about the law-enforcement officer 
involved in the case, had a prior disciplinary offense.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Marshall, 156 Ohio St.3d 263, 2019-Ohio-670, 125 N.E.3d 856. 
{¶ 28} After considering those cases, the board found that the appropriate 
sanction for Goulding’s misconduct falls somewhere between a public reprimand 
and a six-month suspension.  It therefore recommends that we impose a six-month 
suspension but stay the entire suspension on the conditions that Goulding 
January Term, 2020 
 
9
complete two hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) in the area of judicial 
ethics within six months of this court’s final disciplinary order and engage in no 
further misconduct.  In support of that sanction, the board cited Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Hoague, 88 Ohio St.3d 321, 725 N.E.2d 1108 (2000) (imposing a 
conditionally stayed six-month suspension on a judge who misused the authority 
of his judicial office to reprimand the owner and the driver of a vehicle that he 
had personally observed being operated in a reckless manner), and Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Porzio, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio-1569, __ N.E.3d __ (imposing a 
conditionally stayed six-month suspension on a magistrate who, after conducting 
a hearing on petitions for civil stalking protection orders, excused one of the pro 
se parties and then engaged in a lengthy ex parte communication with the 
remaining party regarding the merits of the pending petitions). 
{¶ 29} After independently reviewing the record and relevant precedent, 
we agree that a six-month suspension, stayed in its entirety on the conditions 
recommended by the board, is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 30} Accordingly, Michael Robert Goulding is suspended from the 
practice of law for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions 
that (1) within six months of the final order in this case, he complete two hours of 
CLE in the area of judicial ethics in addition to the requirements of Gov.Jud.R. IV 
and (2) engage in no further misconduct.  If Goulding fails to comply with either 
condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the full six-month 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to Goulding. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, DEWINE, and STEWART, JJ., 
concur. 
DONNELLY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion. 
FISCHER, J., not participating. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
_________________ 
DONNELLY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
 
{¶ 31} In this case, the parties agreed that respondent Judge Michael 
Goulding’s misconduct warrants a public reprimand.  I see nothing in the record 
that suggests that we should impose a sanction different from the one that was 
jointly recommended.  I concur in the bulk of the majority opinion but would 
impose a public reprimand. 
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Michelle R. Bowman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Montgomery Jonson, L.L.P., and George D. Jonson, for respondent. 
_________________