Title: In re Disqualification of Cunningham

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Cunningham, 88 Ohio St.3d 1219, 1999-Ohio-11.] 
 
 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CUNNINGHAM. 
LASSITER v. LASSITER. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Cunningham (1999), 88 Ohio St.3d 1219.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Ex parte communication by judge with 
affiant’s expert witness, a friend of the judge — Contact not objected to by 
the parties — Substance or merits of case not discussed — Judge’s 
continued participation in underlying case not evidence of bias or prejudice. 
(No. 99-AP-108 — Decided December 17, 1999.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, 
Domestic Relations Division case No. DR96003399. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification filed by plaintiff Christo 
Lassiter seeks the disqualification of Judge Penelope R. Cunningham from further 
proceedings regarding the above-captioned case. 
 
Affiant contends that Judge Cunningham should be disqualified because she 
has an admitted friendship with affiant’s expert witness and because she engaged 
in an ex parte communication with the witness during pretrial proceedings.  Affiant 
contends that the friendship between the judge and his expert conveys the 
appearance of improper influence.  Having reviewed affiant’s allegations, I cannot 
conclude that the judge’s continued participation under these circumstances creates 
 
 
2
an appearance of impropriety.  When the relationship was disclosed, counsel for 
the defendant, the party most likely to be adversely affected by the alleged 
friendship, did not object to Judge Cunningham’s continued participation.  I cannot 
conclude that the judge’s continued participation will create a bias, prejudice, or an 
appearance of impropriety. 
 
With regard to the alleged ex parte communication, affiant contends that the 
parties were not made aware of the judge’s intent to contact affiant’s witness.  This 
contention is countered by Judge Cunningham and counsel for the defendant, both 
of whom indicate that the matter was discussed in chambers on November 15, 
1999, and that neither party objected to the contact.  In any event, affiant merely 
alleges that Judge Cunningham “apparently made substantive statements 
concerning the case [emphasis added].”  Judge Cunningham specifically avers that 
she did not discuss the substance or merits of the case and that the purpose of the 
call was to ensure that, in the future, full disclosure of their friendship should be 
made to parties and their counsel.  The letter from affiant’s witness to affiant and 
his attorney does not establish the existence of a substantive conversation.  Under 
these circumstances, I cannot conclude that Judge Cunningham engaged in a 
substantive ex parte communication that mandates her disqualification from this 
case. 
 
 
3
 
In a supplemental affidavit filed on December 10, 1999, affiant further 
alleges that Judge Cunningham should be disqualified because she made “repeated 
requests” of affiant’s counsel to provide an affidavit in support of Judge 
Cunningham’s recollection of events that occurred in chambers on November 15.  
While it certainly would be inappropriate and grounds for disqualification for a 
judge to make repeated requests of and exert pressure on counsel to submit an 
affidavit that is contrary either to counsel’s recollection or to the client’s interests, 
the record before me does not support such a finding in this instance.  The affidavit 
that affiant’s counsel did submit on December 1, 1999, references only a single 
request for an affidavit that was made during the November 23, 1999 telephone 
conference with both attorneys.  This statement is consistent with Judge 
Cunningham’s affidavit, which also references only one request at the conclusion 
of that conference call. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Cunningham.