Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Mascio

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mascio, 88 Ohio St.3d 324, 2000-Ohio-341.] 
 
 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MASCIO. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mascio (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 324.] 
Judges — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Failing to avoid impropriety and 
the appearance of impropriety in all activities — Canon 4. 
(No. 99-1865 — Submitted December 1, 1999 — Decided March 29, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-71. 
 
On October 12, 1998, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a four-
count complaint charging respondent, John J. Mascio of Steubenville, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0020112, with several violations of the Disciplinary 
Rules and the Code of Judicial Conduct for actions taken while respondent was a 
judge. Respondent answered, and the matter was referred for hearing to a panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”). 
 
Based on stipulated facts, the panel found that on July 1, 1994 and on July 3, 
1997, respondent hosted pool parties at his residence.  The invitations to the events 
were undignified, lacking in taste, and may have been offensive to many of the 
invitees. 
 
 
2
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated Canon 4 of the Code 
of Judicial Conduct (a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of 
impropriety in all of the judge’s activities) and recommended that he be publicly 
reprimanded.  The board adopted the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of 
the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
J. Craig Wright and Kirk A. Lindsey, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the 
board.  Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment only.