Title: In re Disqualification of Squire

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Squire, 105 Ohio St.3d 1221, 2004-Ohio-7358.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF SQUIRE. 
JOHNSON v. JOHNSON. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Squire, 105 Ohio St.3d 1221, 
2004-Ohio-7358.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Protracted discord between judge and 
party’s attorney creates appearance of lack of objectivity — 
Disqualification ordered. 
(No. 04-AP-031 — Decided April 9, 2004.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, 
Domestic Relations Division Case No. 03-DR-03-1125. 
____________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Plaintiff’s counsel Alex J. Pomerants has filed an affidavit with the 
Clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking the disqualification of Judge 
Carole Squire from acting on any further proceedings in case No. 03-DR-03-1125 
in the Court of Common Pleas for Franklin County, Domestic Relations Division. 
{¶ 2} Affiant alleges that Judge Squire used demeaning and hostile 
language when speaking to him at a hearing in November 2003.  According to 
affiant, Judge Squire told him that he had “no business being in court,” that it is 
not her job to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, and that he was 
“wasting the court’s time.” 
{¶ 3} The hearing was not transcribed or recorded.  Judge Squire has 
acknowledged in a written response that she did indeed criticize affiant in her 
courtroom for his “lack of preparation, lack of familiarity with procedures, and his 
refusal to accept instruction,” and, according to the judge, those failings “resulted 
in an unnecessary waste of court time.”  She denies, however, that she harbors 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
any hostility or ill will toward affiant or his client, and she does not believe that 
any of her comments could be “characterize[d] as disparaging.” 
{¶ 4} Certainly a judge is entitled to speak with counsel about the kinds 
of issues that both Judge Squire and affiant acknowledge they discussed.  An 
attorney’s unfamiliarity with court rules and procedures, as well as his or her lack 
of preparation, need not go unnoticed and unmentioned by a judge who observes 
them. 
{¶ 5} Even so, a judge, “notwithstanding the conduct of litigants or 
counsel, has an ethical obligation to conduct himself or herself in a courteous and 
dignified manner that does not convey the appearance of bias or prejudice toward 
litigants or their attorneys.”  In re Disqualification of Cleary (2000), 88 Ohio 
St.3d 1220, 1222-1223, 723 N.E.2d 1106.  Conversations between an attorney and 
a judge about the attorney’s alleged failings — including conversations about rule 
violations or the attorney’s lack of preparation — are certainly permissible, but 
the judge must not let his or her views about or frustrations with the attorney so 
infect the case that a disinterested observer might reasonably question the judge’s 
ability to evaluate fairly and objectively both the attorney’s future work and the 
parties’ legal interests. 
{¶ 6} In this case, where no written transcript of the conversation exists, 
I cannot determine precisely what was said, let alone whether the participants 
spoke with the requisite courtesy and respect that ought to attend any courtroom 
discussion between the bench and bar.  Yet it is clear that the conversation has 
spawned an unfortunate and ongoing series of written statements and 
counterstatements between Judge Squire and her staff on the one hand and affiant 
on the other.  That ongoing debate about the content and tone of a conversation 
that occurred several months ago suggests to me that the conversation — 
whatever its precise nature — has now become an impediment that may prevent 
January Term, 2004 
3 
Judge Squire and affiant from approaching this case, and their respective roles in 
it, with the requisite objectivity. 
{¶ 7} Affiant states in his affidavit that he filed with the Office of 
Disciplinary Counsel in 2003 two grievances against Judge Squire alleging 
misconduct on her part in connection with this domestic relations case.  In 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(E), all proceedings and documents relating to 
those uncertified complaints are private and confidential, and I have no 
knowledge about those complaints or the allegations in them beyond what affiant 
and Judge Squire have stated in their filings with this court.  It is apparent from 
the judge’s response to the affidavit that the same conversation that is at issue in 
the affidavit before me was at issue in one of those grievances.  While “a judge is 
not automatically disqualified solely because a party in a case pending before him 
or her has filed a complaint against the judge with Disciplinary Counsel or a 
similar body,” In re Disqualification of Kilpatrick (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 605, 606, 
546 N.E.2d 929, the fact that the judge and this attorney have been at odds for 
several months about a single courtroom conversation raises serious questions for 
me about Judge Squire’s ability to set aside her frustrations with attorney behavior 
that she has repeatedly and in writing described as “contentious,” 
“unprofessional,” and “inappropriate.” 
{¶ 8} Affiant has stated multiple times and in multiple fora — in this 
court, in the trial court, and evidently with the Disciplinary Counsel — his view 
that he cannot represent his client’s interests effectively before Judge Squire in 
light of the November 2003 courtroom conversation and its aftermath.  
Undoubtedly, “[i]t is of vital importance that the litigant should believe that he 
will have a fair trial,” State ex rel. Turner v. Marshall (1931), 123 Ohio St. 586, 
587, 176 N.E. 454, and in this case, it seems fair to say that affiant no longer 
holds that belief.  Whether that belief is accurate, an objective observer who has 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
read the judge’s and affiant’s characterizations of their conversation can 
reasonably question whether either of them can view the other dispassionately. 
{¶ 9} Because the November 2003 conversation has generated so many 
back-and-forth charges and denials, because the ongoing focus by both the judge 
and affiant on that conversation appears to have affected the future ability of the 
judge and affiant to work constructively on this case, and because any further 
difficulties between them might well undermine the parties’ and the public’s 
confidence in the fairness of these proceedings, I conclude that Judge Squire 
should be disqualified. 
{¶ 10} Accordingly, Judge Carole Squire is disqualified from further 
proceedings in this matter.  The case is returned to the administrative judge of the 
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, for 
reassignment. 
_______________