Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Allen

Citation: 1997-Ohio-136

Docket Number: 19970434

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-10-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL V. ALLEN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Allen (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Judges — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Appearance by municipal 
court judge on judge’s bench in her courtroom in her judicial robes 
with her name plate visible in a television commercial produced for 
a law firm. 
 
(No. 97-434 — Submitted June 25, 1997 — Decided October 1, 1997.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-97. 
 
In 1995, producers of a television commercial for the law firm of Harmon, 
Davis & Keys Co., L.P.A., asked respondent, Hamilton County Municipal Court 
Judge Nadine Lovelace Allen of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0026617, to sit on the judge’s bench in her courtroom to add realism to a 
television commercial being produced for the law firm.  In the thirty-second 
commercial, which was televised numerous times from June 26, 1995 through 
August 14, 1995, respondent does not speak, but she does appear on the bench in 
her judicial robes with her name plate visible during the last six seconds of the 
production.  During those six seconds, four persons, ostensibly members of the 
law firm, approach one side of the bench and hand respondent a document, which 
she appears to peruse while the four persons turn and look toward the camera with 
pleasant expressions. 
 
Neither the producers nor the law firm gave respondent an opportunity to 
review the commercial before it appeared.  After receiving an inquiry about the 
commercial from relator, respondent immediately contacted the law firm and 
asked that the television stations stop televising it.  Respondent also immediately 
recused herself from hearing any cases in which the law firm was involved. 
 
2
 
Based upon these facts, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint charging that respondent’s actions violated certain canons of the Code 
of Judicial Conduct.  After respondent answered, the matter was heard by a panel 
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court (“board”), which considered the testimony of respondent, viewed the 
commercial, and received agreed stipulations.  The panel concluded that 
respondent’s actions violated Canon 1 (a judge should herself observe high 
standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary), 2 
(a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all her 
activities), and 2(B) (a judge should not lend the prestige of her office to advance 
the private interests of others) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  The panel 
recommended that the respondent receive a public reprimand.  The board adopted 
the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
J. Warren Bettis, Interim Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  It is of utmost importance that the public have confidence in 
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.  For that reason, Canon 2(B) of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge “should not lend the prestige of his 
office to advance the private interests of others; nor should he convey or permit 
others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him.  
He should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.” 
 
3
 
By her actions, respondent did use the prestige of her office to advance the 
private interests of others, namely a Cincinnati law firm.  Her appearance had the 
potential to lead viewers of the commercial to believe that the firm had a special 
relationship with respondent.  Because judges must not only avoid any 
impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety, a judge must be constantly 
aware of the potential for the public to misunderstand her actions. 
 
In mitigation, we note that before the production of the commercial 
respondent did not expect to appear in it, that she was called upon unexpectedly by 
the producers, and that she made her decision to sit on the bench without sufficient 
reflection about the situation in light of the canons relating to judicial conduct.  
Moreover, we note that later, when the matter was brought to respondent’s 
attention, she reacted immediately and positively to ensure that the offending 
commercial was no longer broadcast and to recuse herself from any cases 
involving the law firm. 
 
Having accepted the board’s findings and conclusions, we adopt also its 
recommendation, and respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., HANDWORK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
 
PETER M. HANDWORK, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for 
RESNICK, J. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  Because I believe respondent’s actions 
were the result of a spur-of-the-moment decision, intended simply to depict a 
judge in a courtroom setting, and were not intended to lend the prestige of her 
office to another’s interest, I respectfully dissent and would dismiss the cause. 
 
4
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.