Title: In re Disqualification of Sheward

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Sheward, 100 Ohio St.3d 1221, 2002-Ohio-7473.] 
 
 
 
 
Opinion in Chambers, per Moyer, C.J. 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF SHEWARD. 
GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE 
SERVICES ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Sheward, 100 Ohio St.3d 1221, 2002-Ohio-
7473.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification not mandated pursuant 
to Canon 3(E) based solely on judge’s participation in discussions 
regarding potential plea bargain or settlement — Judge’s remarks 
warrant his disqualification to avoid the appearance of bias or prejudice, 
when. 
 (No. 02-AP-041 — Decided May 2, 2002.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County Common Pleas Court 
case No. 00CVH021543. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Lawrence Walker, 
counsel for plaintiff, seeking the disqualification of Judge Richard Sheward from 
further proceedings regarding the above-captioned case.  The underlying case is 
pending before Judge Sheward on remand from the court of appeals. 
{¶2} 
Following remand, the parties engaged in negotiations that affiant 
claims resulted in an agreement to settle the underlying matter.  Affiant alleges 
that when one of the defendants failed to honor the terms of the settlement, he 
filed a motion on behalf of his client seeking to enforce the settlement.  Affiant 
January Term, 2003 
2 
then wrote to Judge Sheward, asking that the judge recuse on the grounds that the 
settlement offer was made and possibly accepted in the judge’s presence and that 
he would be a material witness at the hearing on the pending motion.  When 
Judge Sheward refused to recuse himself, affiant filed this affidavit, contending 
that Judge Sheward’s disqualification was mandated pursuant to Canon 3(E) of 
the Code of Judicial Conduct and the case of Bolen v. Young (1982), 8 Ohio 
App.3d 36, 8 OBR 39, 455 N.E.2d 1316. 
{¶3} 
Affiant filed a supplemental affidavit on April 15, 2002, regarding 
a status conference conducted by Judge Sheward earlier that day. During that 
status conference, affiant claims that Judge Sheward made the following remarks: 
{¶4} 
“* * * (a) he said: ‘I wrote you a letter saying that you are a man of 
no integrity and I am now saying that to your face’;  (b) he said that I was the type 
of lawyer who brought disgrace upon the legal profession; and (c) he stated that I 
was not welcome in this Court in connection with the Action or in connection 
with any other matter. * * *” 
{¶5} 
Based on the record before me, I cannot conclude that Judge 
Sheward’s disqualification from the hearing to enforce the purported settlement 
agreement is required pursuant to Canon 3(E) or Bolen. Generally, 
disqualification is not mandated pursuant to Canon 3(E) based solely on the fact 
that a judge participated in discussions regarding a potential plea bargain or 
settlement and thereby obtained knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.  See In 
re Disqualification of Nadel (1989), 74 Ohio St.3d 1214, 657 N.E.2d 1329; and In 
re Disqualification of Williams (1993), 74 Ohio St.3d 1248, 657 N.E.2d 1352.  By 
facilitating or participating to any extent in settlement discussions between or 
among parties to a pending case, a judge is likely to learn more about the facts of 
the underlying case.  However, this does not mean that the judge has personal 
knowledge of those facts, as characterized by the parties to the settlement 
discussions, such that his or her disqualification is required pursuant to Canon 
January Term, 2003 
3 
3(E).  Moreover, Bolen establishes a three-prong test that would mandate an 
evidentiary hearing regarding the alleged settlement before a new judge.  The 
record before me is insufficient to determine the applicability of Bolen to the 
underlying case, since there appears to be significant disagreement as to whether 
and when the parties reached a settlement and whether Judge Sheward was 
present when the settlement, if any, was reached. See Bolen at 37-38, 8 OBR 39, 
455 N.E.2d 1316. 
{¶6} 
Nevertheless, I find that Judge Sheward’s disqualification from 
this matter is warranted to avoid the appearance of bias and prejudice.  The 
remarks attributed to Judge Sheward in affiant’s April 15, 2002 affidavit and set 
forth above suggest to a reasonable person that the judge could harbor a bias 
against affiant based on the fact that he sought the judge’s recusal and 
disqualification.  These comments are similar to those set forth in Judge 
Sheward’s April 4, 2002 response to affiant’s recusal request and have not been 
otherwise controverted by Judge Sheward. 
{¶7} 
For these reasons, Judge Richard S. Sheward is disqualified from 
further proceedings in this matter.  The case is returned to the administrative 
judge of the general division of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas for 
reassignment to another judge of that division. 
__________________