Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Sauter

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Sauter, 96 Ohio St.3d 136, 2002-Ohio-3610.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. SAUTER. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Sauter, 96 Ohio St.3d 136, 2002-Ohio-3610.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Having an ex parte 
communication with counsel for a party in a pending case assigned to 
appellate judge for whom respondent was a clerk. 
(No. 2001-2170 — Submitted May 8, 2002 — Decided July 31, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-26. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Susan M. Sauter of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0055943, was a law clerk to Lee H. Hildebrandt, Jr., a judge of 
the Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District.  While so employed, she had 
ex parte communication with counsel for a party in a pending case.  A panel of 
this court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that the 
communication 
violated 
DR 
1-102(A)(5) 
(conduct 
prejudicial 
to 
the 
administration of justice). 
{¶2} 
The pending matter discussed in the ex parte communication was 
Cincinnati v. Banks (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 272, 757 N.E.2d 1205, an eminent-
domain case in which the city of Cincinnati was appealing a jury’s valuation of 
condemned property.  Banks was assigned to a panel consisting of Judges 
Hildebrandt, Mark Painter, and Robert Gorman.  Argument was scheduled for 
October 10, 2000.  Assistant City Solicitors Mark Vollman and Geri Geiler 
represented the city. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
On October 4, 2000, Sauter sent an e-mail message to a friend of 
hers, Assistant City Solicitor Dotty Carman.  She did not send a copy to counsel 
for the party opposing the city in the Banks case.  The text of the message 
follows: 
{¶4} 
“I couldn’t locate Geiler’s address, so I’m sending this to you to 
send to her. 
{¶5} 
“Re: oral argument next week in Banks.  For standard of review on 
evidentiary issues, courts use abuse of discretion standard.  Recently, judges on 
this court have been defining that standard not as ‘arbitrary, unconscionable’ etc. 
but as ‘not based on a sound reasoning process’  See P&G v. Stoneham, C-
990859, September 29, 2000, unreported [140 Ohio App.3d 260, 747 N.E.2d 268] 
(with Hildebrandt & Painter on panel), Ayer v. Ayer, C-990712, June 30, 2000, 
unreported [2000 WL 864459] (written by Judge Painter), and Hamilton County 
Sheriff v. SERB, 134 Ohio App.3d 654, 731 NE2d 1196 (1999) (Painter & 
Gorman).  Painter especially thinks this is a better standard for abuse-of-discretion 
review.  This type of review is probably better for the city, so you might want to 
hammer on the lack of sound reasoning by the lower court. 
{¶6} 
“This message will self destruct in two hours.” 
{¶7} 
Geiler was out of town, so Carman gave the message to Vollman, 
who reported the matter to his superiors.  Deputy City Solicitor Robert H. 
Johnstone reported the matter to the court administrator of the court of appeals, 
then informed opposing counsel.  Judge Hildebrandt recused himself from the 
Banks case before the oral argument took place on October 10. 
{¶8} 
Judge Hildebrandt also questioned Sauter about her actions.  Sauter 
resigned her clerkship effective October 13, 2000. 
{¶9} 
Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint alleging that 
Sauter’s sending the e-mail violated DR 1-102(A)(5).  The matter was submitted 
to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
January Term, 2002 
3 
Supreme Court.  After a hearing, the panel found that Sauter had violated DR 1-
102(A)(5) and recommended that she be publicly reprimanded.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation.  Sauter has filed 
objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. 
{¶10} We conclude without hesitation that Sauter’s conduct was 
prejudicial to the administration of justice.  Sauter advised the city’s attorney how 
best to appeal to the panel members.  Secretly helping one side was inconsistent 
with Sauter’s position as a confidential assistant to a judge assigned to the case.  
Such conduct, by one in Sauter’s position, may create a false impression that a 
party with inside connections can influence the decision-making processes of a 
court.  Her behavior forced Judge Hildebrandt to recuse himself to restore the 
appearance of impartiality that Sauter’s e-mail had compromised. 
{¶11} We therefore overrule Sauter’s objections and adopt the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations of the board.  Susan M. Sauter is hereby 
publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting. 
{¶12} Respondent had been admitted to the practice of law more than 
nine years at the time she sent the ex parte communication.  The seriousness of 
this ethical breach warrants an actual suspension.  I respectfully dissent. 
__________________ 
 
Laura A. Abrams and Carolyn A. Taggart, for relator. 
 
Susan M. Sauter, pro se. 
__________________