Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Kiacz

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Kiacz, 94 Ohio St.3d 409, 2002-Ohio-1048.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KIACZ, JUDGE. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Kiacz (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 409.] 
Judges — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Meeting with State Highway 
Patrol officers and asking officers to keep number of traffic tickets level 
so court costs would not need to be raised. 
(No. 01-1827 — Submitted December 12, 2001 — Decided February 27, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-49. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In May 1998, George Issac, a member of the citizen’s 
committee overseeing the construction of a new municipal building in Bryan, 
Ohio, asked respondent, Joseph Robert Kiacz, the judge of the Bryan Municipal 
Court, Attorney Registration No. 0003337, whether the court was generating 
sufficient revenue so that the city would not have to contribute to the court’s 
operating budget but could devote its funds to the new building.  Respondent 
replied that the court was financially self-sufficient. 
 
A year later, in May 1999, after the planning for the municipal building 
construction had begun, the Clerk of the Bryan Municipal Court told respondent 
that the number of traffic citations issued by the local State Highway Patrol post 
had dropped substantially in March and April 1999.  Respondent met with 
officers of the local post of the State Highway Patrol and asked whether they 
knew the reason for the drop in citations.  Although the number of citations issued 
by the patrol in June 1999 was higher than in previous months, it continued to 
decline in July, August, and September.  In November 1999, respondent met with 
a senior officer of the State Highway Patrol and asked for an explanation for the 
drop in tickets and complained about the attitude of one of the junior officers he 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
met with in May.  Respondent also discussed with the senior officer the need for 
the municipal court to be financially self-sufficient. 
 
Shortly thereafter, also in November 1999, certain junior officers of the 
State Highway Patrol post met with respondent in a followup meeting.  
Respondent discussed the need to keep court revenues level and asked the officers 
to keep the number of traffic tickets level so that he would not have to raise court 
costs. 
 
The Highway Patrol did not change its actions as a result of these 
meetings, and these meetings had no influence on respondent’s adjudication of 
any case. 
 
On June 5, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent’s actions violated several provisions of the Code of 
Judicial Conduct and the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent 
answered and the matter was referred  to a panel of the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court. 
 
Based on the stipulations of the parties, the panel found the facts as stated 
above and concluded that respondent’s conduct violated Canon 1 of the Code of 
Judicial Conduct (a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the 
judiciary) and Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (a judge shall avoid 
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities). 
 
The panel found “compelling” the statements of numerous character 
witnesses who described respondent as a caring, intelligent, fair judge who is 
deeply involved in his community and who possesses high integrity and respect 
for the judicial system.  The panel therefore recommended that respondent receive 
a public reprimand.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
 
We have reviewed the entire record and adopt the findings, conclusions, 
and recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Elizabeth McCord and George Jonson, for respondent. 
__________________