Title: In re Disqualification of Alspach

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualificaiton of Alspach, 105 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2004-Ohio-7353.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF ALSPACH. 
IN RE ARMENGAU. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Alspach, 105 Ohio St.3d 1232, 
2004-Ohio-7353.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification denied, when. 
(No. 04-AP-049 — Decided June 3, 2004.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Marion County Family Court, case No. 
03-MS-0006. 
____________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
Attorney-affiant Javier Armengau has filed an affidavit with the 
Clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking the disqualification of Judge 
Deborah Alspach from acting on any further proceedings in any case in the 
Marion County Family Court in which affiant is counsel of record. 
{¶2} 
In March 2003, Judge Alspach barred affiant from filing new cases 
in the Marion County Family Court, citing his “persistent requests for 
continuances on many of his Domestic cases and his reluctance to acknowledge 
that this may be as a result of the management of his practice.”  The judge relied 
in her ruling on Sup.R. 41(C), which allows an administrative judge to impose 
restrictions “on the number of cases in which [an] attorney may participate at any 
one time” after the attorney has “persistently request[ed] continuances and 
extensions” and has “cause[d] undue delay in the disposition” of cases. 
{¶3} 
According to affiant, the judge “despises” him and has shown 
“malice” toward him.  Affiant asked the judge in April 2004 to lift the March 
2003 order banning him from filing new cases in the court, but the judge has not 
done so.  Also, since the filing of the no-new-cases order in March 2003, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
judge has found affiant in contempt for failing to appear at a hearing in the one 
case in which he has continued to participate in the judge’s court. 
{¶4} 
Affiant states in his affidavit that he would now like to file a new 
case in the Family Court in Marion County, but the judge’s order prevents him 
from doing so.  Affiant asks in his affidavit filed here that Judge Alspach be 
disqualified from any case in which he is the counsel of record, and he also asks 
that the judge’s order barring him from filing new cases in the Family Court be 
vacated. 
{¶5} 
Judge Alspach has responded to the affidavit, and she has stated in 
her response that she is not biased or prejudiced against affiant.  Rather, according 
to the judge, her actions have been motivated by her interest in resolving the cases 
in her court in a timely way. 
{¶6} 
I conclude that the request for disqualification should be denied.  
To be sure, both Judge Alspach and affiant appear to be quite frustrated by the 
situation, and certainly a ban without end on affiant’s ability to file cases in a 
single court of this state is untenable.  The situation is one of affiant’s own 
making, though, as is the resolution of it.  It appears that the judge is willing to 
permit affiant to return to her courtroom if he offers appropriate assurances that 
he will meet filing deadlines, avoid delaying tactics, and appear at scheduled court 
hearings.  The judge’s demand that attorneys honor time commitments in her 
court is not unreasonable, and as long as she provides affiant with an opportunity 
to convince her that he can and will do so, I have no reason to conclude that the 
judge will not manage affiant’s cases fairly and impartially. 
{¶7} 
Sup.R. 41(C) does not contain any time limit on the restrictions 
that trial judges may impose on attorneys who repeatedly seek continuances.  
Still, though the right to practice law is not a fundamental right, see Russell v. 
Hug (C.A.9, 2002), 275 F.3d 812, 819, fn. 5, Judge Alspach should permit affiant 
January Term, 2004 
3 
to file matters in the Family Court of Marion County when he complies with 
scheduling orders. 
{¶8} 
I conclude that Judge Alspach has not displayed bias or prejudice 
as those terms are understood in this state. 
{¶9} 
For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied. 
___________________