Case Title: In re Disqualification of Maloney

Citation: 2000-Ohio-201

Docket Number: 2000AP030

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-07-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Maloney, 91 Ohio St.3d 1204, 2000-Ohio-201.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF MALONEY. 
WOLK v. WOLK. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Maloney (2000), 91 Ohio St.3d 1204.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Allegation that counsel for plaintiff was 
judge’s campaign manager — Mere fact that one served as member of 
judge’s campaign committee does not, without more, mandate 
disqualification. 
(No. 00-AP-030 — Decided July 6, 2000.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court 
case Nos. 97MS193C and 97CI193. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. This affidavit of disqualification filed by Marshall D. Buck, 
counsel for defendant, Marcia S. Wolk, seeks the disqualification of Judge 
Timothy P. Maloney from further proceedings regarding the above-captioned 
cases. 
 
The essence of affiant’s claim of bias and prejudice is that counsel for 
plaintiff Joshua Wolk in the underlying case was an active participant in Judge 
Maloney’s 1996 election campaign and served as Judge Maloney’s campaign 
manager.  Affiant contends that this matter should have been disclosed prior to 
trial and that this relationship has caused the judge to be biased against affiant’s 
client. 
 
Attorneys are the primary targets of requests for campaign contributions 
and to serve on judicial campaign committees, and the mere fact that an attorney 
served as chairman or a member of a judge’s campaign committee does not, 
without more, mandate the judge’s disqualification from cases in which that 
attorney appears as counsel of record.  See In re Disqualification of Ney (1995), 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
74 Ohio St.3d 1271, 1272, 657 N.E.2d 1367, 1368, and Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline Advisory Op. No. 92-9.  Similarly, financial 
contributions and other forms of support during a judicial campaign do not raise a 
reasonable question regarding a judge’s impartiality.  In re Disqualification of 
Jackson (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1232, 704 N.E.2d 1236. 
 
In this case, the record does not support affiant’s claim that opposing 
counsel served as Judge Maloney’s campaign manager or otherwise took a 
leadership role in the election campaign.  Even if those allegations were true, 
affiant has failed to establish the existence of bias or prejudice or the appearance 
of impropriety that would mandate Judge Maloney’s disqualification from the 
underlying case. 
 
The balance of affiant’s allegations constitutes disagreement or 
dissatisfaction with the judge’s legal rulings, which I have held do not constitute 
grounds for disqualification.  See In re Disqualification of Murphy (1988), 36 
Ohio St.3d 605, 522 N.E.2d 459. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and is denied. 
__________________