Title: In re Disqualification of Schweikert

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Schweikert, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-5456.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF SCHWEIKERT. 
IN RE CASES RELATING TO ABUBAKAR ATIQ DURRANI. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Schweikert, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2018-Ohio-5456.] 
Judges—Affidavits 
of 
disqualification—R.C. 
2701.03—Affiant 
failed 
to 
demonstrate bias or prejudice—Disqualification denied. 
(No. 18-AP-128—Decided December 7, 2018.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 
Case Nos. A1706463 et al. 
____________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Benjamin Maraan has filed another affidavit with the clerk of this 
court pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Mark R. Schweikert, a 
retired judge sitting by assignment, from the cases identified in Exhibit A to Mr. 
Maraan’s affidavit.  Mr. Maraan represents the plaintiffs in medical-malpractice 
actions against Dr. Abubakar Atiq Durrani and various hospitals.  Plaintiffs’ 
counsel have previously filed 21 meritless affidavits of disqualification regarding 
the underlying cases.  See __ Ohio St.3d __, 2018-Ohio-5255, __ N.E.3d __; __ 
Ohio St.3d __, 2018-Ohio-5415, __ N.E.3d __; __ Ohio St.3d __, 2018-Ohio-5416, 
__ N.E.3d __; __ Ohio St.3d __, 2018-Ohio-5418, __ N.E.3d __; __ Ohio St.3d __, 
2018-Ohio-5421, __ N.E.3d __; see also case Nos. 18-AP-065, 18-AP-073, 18-AP-
089, and 18-AP-104. 
{¶ 2} In the present affidavit, Mr. Maraan claims that Judge Schweikert is 
biased against the plaintiffs and their claims because Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., 
one of the law firms representing some of the defendants, previously employed the 
judge’s son and the judge failed to disclose that fact. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 3} Judge Schweikert has responded in writing to the affidavit and 
acknowledges that Dinsmore formerly employed his son.  The judge further states, 
however, that when he was assigned to the underlying cases, his son was “long 
gone” from Dinsmore and that to the judge’s knowledge, his son had no 
involvement in the underlying matters.  Therefore, the judge states that “[i]t did not 
occur to [him] that [he] needed to disclose” that his son is a former Dinsmore 
associate.  Judge Schweikert denies bias in favor of Dinsmore based on his son’s 
former professional relationship with the firm and denies any bias against the 
plaintiffs. 
{¶ 4} Jud.Cond.R. 2.11(A)(2)(b) requires that a judge remove himself or 
herself from a case in which a person within the third degree of relationship to the 
judge is “[a]cting as a lawyer in the proceeding.”  The comments to the rule further 
explain that “[t]he fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm 
with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not itself disqualify the judge” 
unless the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or the relative is 
known by the judge to have “an interest in the law firm that could be substantially 
affected by the proceeding.”  Jud.Cond.R. 2.11, Comment 4.  Applying this rule, 
the chief justice previously decided that a judge could remain on a case involving 
a law firm that employed the judge’s brother as a nonequity attorney because there 
was no evidence that the judge’s brother had worked on the case or that he would 
share in the firm’s profits.  See In re Disqualification of Celebrezze, 145 Ohio St.3d 
1242, 2015-Ohio-5672, 49 N.E.3d 306, ¶ 7.  The circumstances here are more 
attenuated than those in Celebrezze.  Not only is there no allegation that Judge 
Schweikert’s son was involved in the underlying cases while employed by 
Dinsmore, but the judge’s son had left Dinsmore before Judge Schweikert was 
assigned to hear the cases.  Based on this record, these is no reason to question 
Judge Schweikert’s impartiality based on his son’s prior employment. 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
{¶ 5} The comments to Jud.Cond.R. 2.11 also state that a “judge should 
disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their 
lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for 
disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.”  
Jud.Cond.R. 2.11, Comment 5.  Certainly, Judge Schweikert could have disclosed 
his son’s former employment, but given the judge’s response to the affidavit, his 
failure to do so cannot be described as a product of bias warranting his removal.  
See In re Disqualification of Jennings, 143 Ohio St.3d 1225, 2014-Ohio-5866, 35 
N.E.3d 531, ¶ 6 (a judge’s failure to disclose her spouse’s professional relationship 
with counsel appearing before her did not require the judge’s disqualification); In 
re Disqualification of Serrott, 134 Ohio St.3d 1245, 2012-Ohio-6340, 984 N.E.2d 
14, ¶ 8-14 (a judge’s failure to disclose his prior professional relationship with an 
attorney appearing before him did not require the judge’s disqualification). 
{¶ 6} The affidavit of disqualification is denied. 
________________________