Title: In re Disqualification of Mason

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Mason, 110 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2005-Ohio-7150.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF MASON. 
DUNHAM v. DUNHAM. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Mason, 110 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2005-Ohio-
7150.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification denied. 
(No. 05-AP-032—Decided May 10, 2005.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, 
Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 02DR-06-2413. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Defendant Frank L. Dunham has filed an affidavit with the clerk of 
this court under R.C. 2701.03, seeking the disqualification of Judge Jim Mason 
from acting on any further proceedings in case No. 02DR-06-2413 in the Court of 
Common Pleas of Franklin County, Domestic Relations Division. 
{¶ 2} The defendant alleges that the judge hired opposing counsel as a 
staff attorney while the case was still pending and has continued to rule on 
motions in the case since doing so. 
{¶ 3} Judge Mason has responded to the affidavit.  He acknowledges that 
he hired plaintiff’s counsel as his staff attorney, but states that he insisted she not 
begin the job until he had issued a final decision in the plaintiff’s case.  He 
indicates that their discussions about the job before the decision was issued in 
March 2005 never addressed the substance of that decision, and he states that the 
plaintiff’s attorney began her job with him one week after the decision had been 
released.  The judge also contends that the decision actually favors the defendant 
more than the plaintiff, and he denies holding any bias or prejudice for or against 
either party. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} I find no basis for ordering the disqualification of Judge Mason.  
To be sure, the judge’s new staff attorney should not perform any official duties 
for the judge in this or any other matter in which she served as a lawyer, or in any 
matters in which a lawyer with whom she previously practiced law served (during 
her association with the firm) as a lawyer.  As long as the judge imposes those 
restrictions on his staff attorney, I conclude that a reasonable observer would not 
harbor serious doubts about the judge’s impartiality.  By erecting a screen 
between his staff attorney and any cases in which she participated as a lawyer, the 
judge can avoid the need for his own disqualification.  See Milgard Tempering, 
Inc. v. Selas Corp. of Am. (C.A.9, 1990), 902 F.2d 703, 714 (“If a [law] clerk has 
a possible conflict of interest it is the clerk, not the judge, who must be 
disqualified”). 
{¶ 5} The timing of the staff attorney’s hiring so soon after the judge had 
issued a decision in the case does raise questions about possible bias on the 
judge’s part, but I accept the judge’s assurances that he did not allow his 
employment-related discussions with the plaintiff’s attorney while the case was 
pending to influence the outcome of the case.  As I have said, “[a] judge is 
presumed to follow the law and not to be biased, and the appearance of bias or 
prejudice must be compelling to overcome these presumptions.”  In re 
Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2003-Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 
23, ¶ 5.  Those presumptions have not been overcome in this case. 
{¶ 6} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Mason. 
______________________