Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Salerno

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Salerno, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-791.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-791 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. SALERNO. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Salerno,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-791.] 
Judges—Misconduct—Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct—Criticizing 
jurors for a verdict other than in a court order or opinion—Consent-to-
discipline agreement—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2014-1380—Submitted September 10, 2014—Decided March 11, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-040. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Amelia Angela Salerno of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0032253, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1982.  
She was first elected to the Franklin County Municipal Court in 2005 and 
continues to serve as a judge of that court. 
{¶ 2} On May 9, 2014, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged 
Salerno with two violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct arising from her 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
comments to a jury and members of the public gallery after the jury returned a 
not-guilty verdict in a criminal case. 
{¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline1 considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See former BCGD Proc.Reg. 11.2  In that agreement, Salerno stipulates that after 
the jury returned a not-guilty verdict in a criminal trial, she remained in the 
courtroom to speak with the impaneled jurors and other pool jurors whom she had 
invited to sit in the public gallery.  During the discussion, she told the jurors that 
in her opinion, they had reached the wrong verdict, and she disclosed that the 
defendant had additional criminal charges pending against him, though that 
information had not been admitted into evidence because it was more prejudicial 
than probative of the issues in the trial. 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that this conduct violates Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 
(requiring a judge to respect and comply with the law and to act at all times in a 
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the 
judiciary) and 2.8(C) (prohibiting a judge from commending or criticizing jurors 
for their verdict other than in a court order or opinion in a proceeding). 
{¶ 5} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulate that Salerno’s conduct 
adversely affected several jurors, who were quite upset by the judge’s criticism, 
and subjected the entire Ohio judicial system to widespread criticism and ridicule 
after her remarks received nationwide media coverage.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(h).3  The parties stipulate that the mitigating factors present include the 
absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, Gov.Bar R. V(16), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXX, governs consent-to-
discipline agreements. 
 
3 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
January Term, 2015 
3 
 
motive, Salerno’s cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and 
evidence of her good character or reputation apart from the charged misconduct.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e).  Based upon Salerno’s 
stipulated misconduct and these factors, the parties stipulate that a public 
reprimand is the appropriate sanction here. 
{¶ 6} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety.  In support of this recommendation, they rely on three 
cases in which we have publicly reprimanded judges who failed to avoid 
impropriety or the appearance of impropriety in the performance of their judicial 
duties.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Stuard, 121 Ohio St.3d 29, 2009-Ohio-261, 901 
N.E.2d 788 (publicly reprimanding a judge who engaged in ex parte 
communications with an assistant prosecutor to request that the assistant 
prosecutor prepare the sentencing order in a capital case and to discuss the draft); 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Goldie, 107 Ohio St.3d 201, 2005-Ohio-6186, 837 N.E.2d 
782 (publicly reprimanding a judge for proceeding to find a defendant guilty and 
imposing a sentence after the judge had been ordered to recuse herself from the 
case); and Disciplinary Counsel v. Kubilus, 101 Ohio St.3d 29, 2003-Ohio-6610, 
800 N.E.2d 1131 (publicly reprimanding a judge for allowing his administrative 
assistant, who was not a lawyer, to create arraignment-hearing entries, to sign the 
judge’s name on a form documenting an administrative suspension of a driver’s 
license, and to deny a request for a reduction in a jail sentence). 
{¶ 7} We agree that Salerno’s conduct violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 and 
2.8(c), as stated in the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, and that this 
conduct warrants a public reprimand.  We therefore adopt the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement. 
{¶ 8} Accordingly, Amelia Angela Salerno is hereby publicly 
reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to Salerno. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
John J. Mueller, Laurence A. Turbow, and Eugene P. Whetzel, for relator. 
Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, George D. Jonson, and Lisa M. Zaring, 
for respondent. 
______________________