Case Title: In re Disqualification of Saffold

Citation: 2001-Ohio-4103

Docket Number: 2001AP1238

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-11-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Saffold, 94 Ohio St.3d 1238, 2001-Ohio-4103.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF SAFFOLD. 
STAR BANK, N.A. v. SUMMER ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Saffold (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 1238.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Judge’s communications with court of 
appeals while case in which she presided is pending on appeal are not 
evidence of bias or prejudice, when. 
(No. 01-AP-091 — Decided November 29, 2001.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 
case No. 340341. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification was filed by George R. 
Hicks, Jr., counsel for plaintiff,  seeking the disqualification of Judge Shirley 
Strickland Saffold from further proceedings in the above-captioned case, Star 
Bank, N.A. v. William L. Summer et al. 
 
The record reflects that while this action was pending on appeal before the 
Eighth District Court of Appeals, the parties participated in a prehearing 
conference that was conducted by the appellate court’s conference attorney.  
During the prehearing conference, the conference attorney allegedly commented 
on the appellate court’s propensity for reversing Judge Saffold’s rulings.  Affiant 
contends that this comment was conveyed to Judge Saffold by the defendants or 
their counsel.  Affiant further contends that Judge Saffold subsequently sent two 
letters to the judges of the Eighth District Court of Appeals in which she 
expressed concern regarding the propriety of the conference attorney’s comment.  
Affiant contends that by communicating ex parte with the defendants or their 
counsel and by contacting the appellate judges during the pendency of the appeal, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Judge Saffold has created the appearance of impropriety that mandates her 
disqualification from further proceedings in this case. 
 
Judge Saffold states that she learned of the conference attorney’s 
comments from her bailiff and denies engaging in ex parte communications with 
the defendants or their counsel.  She does not deny contacting the court of appeals 
after learning of the comments but maintains that she limited her communication 
to an expression of concern over the propriety of the comments and the impact 
that the conference attorney’s comments would have on the integrity of the trial 
court. 
 
In affidavit of disqualification proceedings, the question regarding alleged 
ex parte communications is not whether the communication violates the Code of 
Judicial Conduct but whether the communications demonstrate bias or prejudice 
on the part of the judge.  To satisfy this test, the communications must have been 
initiated by the judge or address substantive matters in this case.  See In re 
Disqualification of Reid (Nov. 30, 1995), No. 95-AP-156, unreported, and 
compare In re Disqualification of Aurelius (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1254, 674 
N.E.2d 362, with In re Disqualification of Williams (1993), 74 Ohio St.3d 1248, 
657 N.E.2d 1352.  Moreover, the allegations must be substantiated and consist of 
something more than hearsay.  In re Disqualification of Cacioppo (1996), 77 Ohio 
St.3d 1245, 674 N.E.2d 356. 
 
The record before me does not support a finding that the alleged 
communication satisfies any of these tests.  There is no evidence that Judge 
Saffold either directly received or initiated the alleged communication.  Most 
important, affiant fails to establish that the alleged communication related to the 
substance of the underlying case. 
 
More troubling is Judge Saffold’s written communications with the court 
of appeals while the underlying case was pending before that court.  Normally, a 
trial judge should refrain from communicating with an appellate court about a 
January Term, 2002 
3 
case that is pending in that court.  However, it is not alleged that the 
communications at issue here addressed the substance of the pending case.  
Rather, the parties agree that the communications reflected Judge Saffold’s 
concern over the comments allegedly made by the conference attorney and the 
impact those comments would have on the integrity of the trial court.  Although 
the better practice would have been to defer these communications until after the 
court of appeals completed its review of this case, I cannot conclude that the 
limited nature of Judge Saffold’s communication creates an appearance of 
impropriety that mandates her disqualification from this matter. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and is denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Saffold. 
__________________