Title: In re Disqualification of Doan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF DOAN ET AL. 
HAWTHORNE v. KALB. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Doan (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1230.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Judges’ review of attorney’s conduct in 
the context of a criminal appeal does not preclude judges from reviewing the 
propriety of the dismissal of a subsequent malpractice action based on the 
attorney’s earlier conduct — Judges are presumed to conduct independent 
review. 
(No. 98-AP-086 — Decided August 11, 1998.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Hamilton County Court of Appeals case 
No. C-980471. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Thomas 
Hawthorne seeking the disqualification of Judges Rupert A. Doan, Mark P. Painter, 
J. Howard Sunderman, Jr., and Retired Judge Raymond E. Shannon from further 
proceedings regarding the above-captioned case. 
 
Affiant contends that the judges named in the affidavit should be 
disqualified because they previously ruled on the propriety of the defendant-
appellee Ann L. Kalb’s conduct in filing an Anders brief in affiant’s criminal 
appeal.  However, the mere fact that the judges reviewed the defendant-appellee’s 
conduct in the context of a criminal appeal does not preclude those judges from 
reviewing the propriety of the trial court’s action in dismissing a subsequent 
malpractice action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  
The judges are presumed to conduct an independent review of the pending appeal 
and apply the appropriate legal standard in determining the propriety of the trial 
court’s action. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and is denied.