Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Cox

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cox, 96 Ohio St.3d 47, 2002-Ohio-2989.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. COX. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cox, 96 Ohio St.3d 47, 2002-Ohio-2989.] 
Judges — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension —Receiving loans from attorneys 
who regularly appeared before respondent judge. 
(No. 2002-0296 — Submitted April 23, 2002 — Decided July 3, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-92. 
__________________ 
 
PER CURIAM. 
{¶1} 
On November 21, 2000, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a four-
count complaint charging respondent Edward A. Cox of  Youngstown, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0001520, a judge of the Seventh District Court of 
Appeals,  with violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of 
Professional Responsibility for receiving loans from attorneys who regularly 
appeared before him.  Respondent answered, and the matter was referred to a 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. 
{¶2} 
Based upon the stipulations of the parties and testimony received at 
a hearing on November 30, 2001, the panel found that respondent was addicted to 
racetrack gambling and that to obtain funds for his gambling, he borrowed money 
from his friends who also were attorneys who appeared before him.  It found no 
evidence that any of the attorneys who made these loans and appeared before 
respondent received any benefit from respondent. 
{¶3} 
In considering Count One, the panel found that in 1999, while an 
active judge on the court of appeals, respondent accepted $400 from attorney 
Stuart Banks.  Banks believed he was paying a fee for respondents’ referral of a 
client to Banks.  Respondent contended that the payment was unrelated to the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
referral.  The panel found that this conduct of respondent violated Canon 1 of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct (a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of 
the judiciary), Canon 2 (a judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes 
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary), Canon 2, 
Division (C)(5) (a judge shall not accept a gift or loan except in limited and 
specified situations), and Canon 4 (a judge shall avoid impropriety and the 
appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities). 
{¶4} 
In considering Count Two, the panel found that in February 1998, 
respondent borrowed $20,000 from attorney Richard Goldberg.  He borrowed 
another $5,000 from Goldberg in April 1998 and $2,500 from him in May 1998.  
Respondent did not disclose these loans on his 1999 financial disclosure 
statement, which all judges are required to file under Canon 2, Division (D)(3)(a) 
of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  However, respondent later amended his 
disclosure statement to report Goldberg as a creditor.  The panel found that 
respondent’s conduct in obtaining the loans violated Canons 1, 2, and 4 and 
Canon 2, Division (C)(5). 
{¶5} 
Relator dismissed Count Three. 
{¶6} 
In considering Count Four, the panel found that over a period of 
years respondent borrowed sums ranging from $100 to $500 from attorneys 
appearing in his court.  Once again the panel found that respondent’s conduct 
violated Canons 1, 2, and 4 and Canon 2, Division (C)(5). 
{¶7} 
In mitigation, the panel noted evidence of respondent’s gambling 
addiction and noted that respondent had no previous disciplinary problems. 
{¶8} 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years with one year stayed conditioned upon his entering 
into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance Program for treatment of his 
gambling addiction and compliance with the terms of that contract during that 
January Term, 2002 
3 
suspension.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the panel. 
{¶9} 
On review of the record, we adopt the findings and conclusion of 
the board but not its recommendation.  We find respondent’s violations of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct to be deplorable and egregious.  Canon 1 of the Code of 
Judicial Conduct requires a judge to uphold the integrity and independence of the 
judiciary.  Canon 2 requires a judge, inter alia, to act at all times in a manner that 
promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.  By 
his actions, respondent has undermined public confidence in judicial integrity and 
impartiality and therefore an indefinite suspension is appropriate.  Respondent is 
hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed 
to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent, would follow the board’s 
recommendation, and would suspend respondent for two years with one year 
stayed. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Crabbe, Brown & James, Larry H. James and Christine L. Corl, for 
respondent. 
__________________