Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Vukelic

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Vukelic, 102 Ohio St.3d 421, 2004-Ohio-3651.] 
 
 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. VUKELIC. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Vukelic, 102 Ohio St.3d 421, 2004-Ohio-3651.] 
Attorneys at law – Magistrates – Misconduct – Public reprimand – Canon 
3(E)(1), Code of Judicial Conduct – Failure to disqualify oneself where 
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 
(No. 2004-0395 — Submitted March 30, 2004 — Decided July 28, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-091. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David A. Vukelic of Steubenville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0001077, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1977.  
On October 6, 2003, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged respondent with 
having committed professional misconduct in his capacity as a part-time 
magistrate in the Mayor’s Court of Toronto, Ohio.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ 
consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 2} In addition to serving as a part-time magistrate, respondent also 
had a private law practice during the events at bar.  On August 26, 2002, 
respondent filed a motion in the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas on 
behalf of a domestic relations client.  On October 31, 2002, while presiding in his 
capacity as magistrate, respondent’s client in the pending domestic relations case 
appeared before him in mayor’s court on two charges for the commission of 
criminal misdemeanors. 
Supreme Court of Ohio 
2 
{¶ 3} Respondent realized that his client’s court appearance presented a 
situation in which his impartiality might be legitimately questioned and from 
which he should disqualify himself.  Respondent nevertheless failed to 
immediately transfer the cause to a different jurisdiction for resolution, allowing 
the case against his client to be discussed in his presence.  The parties agreed and 
the panel found that respondent had thereby violated the Canon 3(E)(1) of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires a person functioning in a judicial 
capacity to disqualify himself where his impartiality might reasonably be 
questioned.  The board adopted this finding of misconduct. 
{¶ 4} The panel also considered the appropriate sanction for 
respondent’s misconduct.  Consistent with the parties’ agreement, the panel found 
mitigating that respondent had no prior disciplinary record, had not acted 
dishonestly, had cooperated completely in the disciplinary process, and had a 
reputation for good character in his community.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e).  The panel found no aggravating features in 
respondent’s case. 
{¶ 5} The panel accepted the parties’ suggestion that respondent be 
publicly reprimanded for his misconduct.  The board adopted the panel’s 
recommendation. 
{¶ 6} We agree with the board’s finding of misconduct and 
recommendation.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded for 
having violated Canon 3(E)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Costs are taxed 
to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Eugene P. Whetzel and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
 
Charles W. Kettlewell and Charles J. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
____________________