Case Title: In re Disqualification of Russo

Citation: 1997-Ohio-18

Docket Number: 1997AP049

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF RUSSO. 
COHEN, M.D., ET AL. v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Russo (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification not required when judge 
was previously employed by two insurance companies, including one of the 
defendants in the underlying case — Judge need not check his or her 
experience at the courthouse door upon assuming the bench. 
(No. 97-AP-049 — Decided April 21, 1997.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County  
Court of Common Pleas case No. 294256. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  Affiant, Richard Gurbst, has filed an affidavit seeking the 
disqualification of Judge Nancy M. Russo from further proceedings in the 
underlying case.  Affiant is counsel for the plaintiffs in a potential class action suit 
that involves the alleged failure of various insurance companies to make full 
payments to providers of outpatient mental health services to persons covered by 
Medicare. 
 
In support of his claim of bias and prejudice, affiant alleges that Judge 
Russo previously was employed by two insurance companies, including one of the 
defendants in the underlying case.  Affiant asserts that Judge Russo has allowed 
this employment and her past experience in the insurance industry to influence her 
judgment in this case and references two recent adverse rulings on motions.  In 
making these rulings, affiant contends that Judge Russo expressed opinions and 
reached conclusions that were not evidenced in the record and that demonstrate 
bias against his clients. 
 
Having reviewed the record, I cannot conclude that Judge Russo’s 
disqualification is warranted because of the existence of a bias or prejudice against 
affiant’s clients or to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  Judge Russo’s prior 
employment with one of the defendant insurance companies ended in 1994.  There 
is no indication that this employment, or her prior employment with another 
insurance company, was related to the subject matter of the underlying case or 
exposed the judge to disputed evidentiary facts in the underlying proceeding, such 
that would mandate her disqualification under the Code of Judicial Conduct. 
 
While there is no doubt that Judge Russo’s prior employment and education 
provides her with some degree of expertise in the substantive area of law at issue 
in the underlying case, her reliance on this expertise in considering matters before 
her does not mandate her disqualification.  Judges are elected to office, at least in 
part, because of their personal and professional experiences.  A judge’s practice of 
law often allows the judge to develop a proficiency in one or more areas of the 
law.  A judge is not required, either by the Code of Judicial Conduct or to avoid 
any reasonable question of his or her impartiality, to check his or her experience at 
the courthouse door upon assuming the bench.  Rather, the public expects that a 
judge will use that experience appropriately in fulfilling his or her responsibilities 
in a manner consistent with the Code of Judicial Conduct and the judicial oath of 
office. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found to be not well 
taken and is denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Russo.