Case Title: In re Disqualification of Christiansen

Citation: 1999-Ohio-7

Docket Number: 1999AP035

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CHRISTIANSEN. 
SEHLMEYER v. TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Christiansen (1999), 88 Ohio St.3d 1211.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Judge had parties’ consent to engage in 
ex parte settlement discussions with representatives of each party — No 
claim for disqualification recognized. 
(No. 99-AP-035 — Decided May 25, 1999.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas 
case No. 96-2150. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification filed by Denise M. 
Hasbrook, counsel for defendants Toledo Edison Company et al., seeks the 
disqualification of Judge Robert G. Christiansen from further proceedings 
regarding the underlying case.  The case was tried to a jury, which returned a 
verdict in favor of the plaintiff Dennie M. Sehlmeyer, Jr.  The jury verdict and 
court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for a new trial and judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict have been appealed by the defendants to the Sixth 
District Court of Appeals.  Pending before Judge Christiansen is the plaintiff’s 
request for an award of prejudgment interest. 
 
Affiant asserts that Judge Christiansen should be disqualified from ruling on 
the issue of prejudgment interest because of an alleged ex parte communication 
 
2
that occurred during the trial between the judge and the claims manager for the 
defendants.  Affiant indicates that she first became aware of this conversation 
during a February 24, 1999 hearing on the issue of prejudgment interest.  While 
affiant does not object to the ex parte nature of the conversation, she asserts that 
the judge improperly approached the claims manager outside her presence, 
contrary to Canon 3(B)(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Affiant further 
contends that this conversation affected the judge’s subsequent consideration of the 
case and will influence his ruling on the issue of the plaintiff’s entitlement to 
prejudgment interest. 
 
In support of her claim of disqualification, affiant relies on In re 
Disqualification of Williams (1993), 74 Ohio St.3d 1248, 657 N.E.2d 1352.  In 
Williams, I disqualified a trial judge who initiated settlement discussions on an ex 
parte basis with the law director for a municipal corporation that was being 
represented in the underlying case by private counsel.  The basis for 
disqualification in Williams was the provision of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial 
Conduct relative to ex parte communications.  Canon 3(B)(7) reads, in pertinent 
part, as follows: 
 
“A 
judge 
shall 
not 
initiate, 
receive, 
permit, 
or 
consider 
communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or 
their representatives concerning a pending or impending proceeding * * *.” 
 
3
 
I find the circumstances of the underlying case distinguishable from those in 
the Williams case cited by affiant.  In Williams, there was no indication that the 
judge had the parties’ consent to engage in ex parte settlement negotiations, and 
the role of the city law director, with whom the judge had settlement discussions, 
was unclear.  In the underlying case, the parties authorized the judge to conduct ex 
parte settlement discussions with representatives of each party in an effort to settle 
the case.  These discussions continued up to and through the trial without 
objection.  Moreover, the discussion referenced by affiant was between Judge 
Christiansen and an individual who, in the affiant’s words, attended the trial as the 
corporate agent of the defendants.  While the more appropriate approach would 
have been to include counsel for the defendants in the settlement discussion with 
the corporate agent, this individual was a “representative” of the defendants for 
purposes of Canon 3(B)(7).  As Judge Christiansen’s communication was with an 
individual whom he believed to be an authorized representative of the defendants, 
there can be no claim of disqualification under either Canon 3(B)(7) or Williams. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Christiansen.