Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Detty

Citation: 2002-Ohio-2992

Docket Number: 20020331

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Detty, 96 Ohio St.3d 57, 2002-Ohio-2992.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DETTY. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Detty, 96 Ohio St.3d 57, 2002-Ohio-2992.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire suspension 
stayed — Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 
law — Use of political pressure in improper attempt to influence judge’s 
handling of pending case. 
(No. 2002-0331 — Submitted April 10, 2002 — Decided July 3, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-71. 
__________________ 
 
PER CURIAM. 
{¶1} 
In December 2000, respondent, John Detty of Jackson, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0022112, was romantically involved with the plaintiff 
in a divorce case pending before a judge of the court of common pleas in that 
county.  Respondent was active in party politics and later that month would 
become a member of his party’s county executive committee. 
{¶2} 
Respondent approached the judge, who was a member of 
respondent’s political party, and told him that he was concerned about the manner 
in which the judge’s magistrate was conducting the divorce case.  Specifically, 
because of accusations that the defendant husband had molested a female child of 
the marriage, respondent was concerned about the magistrate’s stated intention to 
allow Christmas visitation rights to the husband.  Respondent told the judge that if 
the judge allowed the magistrate to continue to make such decisions, it would 
create political problems for the judge.  The common pleas judge responded that 
he had already informed the children’s services board of the allegations of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
molestation and then ended the conversation.  Later that month, respondent asked 
a municipal judge in the county to intervene with the common pleas judge.  The 
municipal court judge did not intervene but told the common pleas judge of her 
conversation with respondent and mentioned that respondent again said that 
political problems for the common pleas judge might result if he failed to 
withdraw the case from the magistrate. 
{¶3} 
In mid-December 2000, the common pleas judge received a 
telephone call from a minister and over 500 letters, similar in style, each 
expressing great concern over the issue of child abuse and stating that the writer 
would be closely watching the court on this issue.  Some letters specifically 
mentioned the pending divorce case.  The minister also wrote a letter to the judge 
stating that respondent had offered a draft form letter to members of the minister’s 
congregation to assist the members in sending letters to the judge.  Respondent 
admitted that he had personally appeared at the church and suggested that 
members of the congregation write letters similar to a letter that he had drafted. 
{¶4} 
On the basis of these facts, the relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed 
a complaint charging that respondent had violated several provisions of the Code 
of Professional Responsibility.  After respondent answered, the matter was 
referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court. 
{¶5} 
The panel found the facts as stated above and concluded that while 
it may be permissible for a private citizen to write to a judge about a pending 
case, it is improper for an attorney not representing a party in the case to directly 
or indirectly communicate with a judge to influence the outcome of pending 
litigation.  The panel concluded that the respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-
102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice) and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely 
reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). It recommended that the 
January Term, 2002 
3 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months with all six 
months stayed. 
{¶6} 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation 
of the panel. 
{¶7} 
On 
review 
we 
adopt 
the 
findings, 
conclusions, 
and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice 
of law for six months with the entire suspension stayed.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting. 
{¶8} 
The respondent used political pressure in an improper attempt to 
influence a judge’s handling of a pending case.  Such conduct warrants a six-
month actual suspension.  Because the majority instead imposes a stayed 
suspension, I respectfully dissent. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Geoffrey Stern, for respondent. 
__________________