Case Title: In re Disqualification of O'Neill

Citation: 2002-Ohio-7478

Docket Number: 02AP089

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-09-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1230, 2002-Ohio-7478.] 
 
 
 
 
Opinion in Chambers, per Moyer, C.J. 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF O’NEILL. 
MAJOR BUILDERS SERVICE, INC. v. SENTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET 
AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1230, 2002-Ohio-
7478.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Judge will not be disqualified based 
solely on fact that lawyer in a pending case may be a witness in 
disciplinary proceedings brought against the judge — Vague and 
unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to support a finding of bias or 
prejudice. 
(No. 02-AP-089 — Decided September 30, 2002.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County Common Pleas Court 
case No. 01CVH076453. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Charles H. Cooper 
Jr., counsel for the defendants, seeking the disqualification of Judge Deborah P. 
O’Neill from the above-captioned case and all other cases in which affiant’s firm 
is counsel. 
{¶2} 
As the basis for seeking Judge O’Neill’s disqualification, affiant 
states that Sheila P. Vitale served as Judge O’Neill’s staff attorney from July 1999 
to May 2002, until Vitale became the third lawyer in affiant’s firm.  Affiant states 
that in June 2002, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a disciplinary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
complaint against Judge O’Neill, alleging various acts of misconduct.  Affiant 
claims that Vitale has provided, and continues to provide, testimony to the 
Disciplinary Counsel that is “adverse” to Judge O’Neill.  For this reason, affiant 
asserts that Judge O’Neill should be disqualified to avoid the appearance of 
impropriety and to ensure the confidence of the parties and the public in the 
fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. 
{¶3} 
In her response to this affidavit of disqualification, Judge O’Neill 
states that she cannot confirm the accuracy of the claim that her former staff 
attorney has provided testimony to the Disciplinary Counsel.  Judge O’Neill states 
that, to her knowledge, she had a positive relationship with her former staff 
attorney and does not indicate that their parting was anything other than amicable. 
{¶4} 
I have held that a judge will not be disqualified from a pending 
matter based solely on the fact that a lawyer in the matter has filed a disciplinary 
complaint against the judge.  In re Disqualification of Kilpatrick (1989), 47 Ohio 
St.3d 605, 546 N.E.2d 929. I have also held that a judge will not be disqualified 
based solely on the fact that a lawyer in a pending case may be a witness in 
disciplinary proceedings brought against the judge.  See In re Disqualification of 
Maschari (1999), 88 Ohio St.3d 1212, 723 N.E.2d 1101; In re Disqualification of 
O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2002-Ohio-7476, 798 N.E.2d 12. 
{¶5} 
In the instant case, the affiant has neither filed a disciplinary 
complaint against Judge O’Neill, nor is he a witness in the disciplinary 
proceeding pending against Judge O’Neill.  This affiant’s only relationship to 
Judge O’Neill is that one of the lawyers in his firm formerly worked for Judge 
O’Neill, and the former employee is alleged to have provided testimony adverse 
to Judge O’Neill in a pending disciplinary matter.  There is nothing in the record 
before me to support this claim: affiant did not include a statement or affidavit 
from Vitale, or any other evidence to corroborate his allegation.  The record has 
January Term, 2003 
3 
only his assertion that his employee provided testimony that is adverse to Judge 
O’Neill. 
{¶6} 
Further, affiant has not cited any instance where Judge O’Neill has 
shown bias or prejudice against anyone who is involved in or has provided 
testimony in the pending disciplinary proceeding.  Affiant has not suggested that 
Judge O’Neill will make decisions adverse to affiant or his clients because affiant 
is counsel.  Affiant has not suggested how Judge O’Neill’s participation in this 
case creates an appearance of impropriety or how the public’s confidence in the 
judicial system is undermined by her participation. 
{¶7} 
Vague and unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to support a 
finding of bias or prejudice.  In re Disqualification of Walker (1988), 36 Ohio 
St.3d 606, 522 N.E.2d 460. The disqualification of a judge is an extraordinary 
remedy.  In re Disqualification of Hunter (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 607, 522 N.E.2d 
461. A judge is presumed to follow the law and is presumed not to be biased.  The 
appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome these 
presumptions.  In re Disqualification of Olivito (1994), 74 Ohio St.3d 1261, 657 
N.E.2d 1361. There is nothing in the record before me that supports a claim of 
bias or prejudice or that requires the disqualification of Judge O’Neill to avoid the 
appearance of impropriety or to ensure confidence in the fairness and integrity of 
judicial proceedings. 
{¶8} 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well 
taken and is denied.  Judge O’Neill may continue to participate in the underlying 
case, and in any case in which affiant or his firm is counsel.