Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Goldie

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Goldie, 107 Ohio St.3d 201, 2005-Ohio-6186.] 
 
 
 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. GOLDIE. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Goldie, 107 Ohio St.3d 201, 2005-Ohio-6186.] 
Judges — Code of Judicial Conduct — Canon 8 — Judge must respect law and 
act at all times in manner that promotes public confidence in judiciary — 
Proceeding in case despite order of recusal — Public reprimand. 
(No. 2005-1107 — Submitted August 23, 2005 — Decided December 7, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-054. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Susan L. Goldie of Xenia, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0018439, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978. 
{¶ 2} On October 11, 2004, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged 
that respondent had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct while serving as a 
judge of the Xenia Municipal Court.  The parties later waived a hearing in the 
cause and stipulated that respondent had violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial 
Conduct, which requires that a judge respect and comply with the law and act at 
all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and 
impartiality of the judiciary.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline accepted this stipulation of misconduct and, consistent with the parties’ 
suggestion, recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In October 2002, Rhonda Love Savage was involved in an 
automobile accident with a Greene County deputy sheriff.  After Savage refused a 
field sobriety test, respondent signed out a warrant at a local hospital ordering a 
blood-alcohol test for Savage.  Savage was later arraigned before respondent and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
pleaded not guilty to the charges of OMVI, failing to yield, driving under a 
suspended license, and leaving the scene of an accident.  Savage was released on 
bond. 
{¶ 4} Savage was later arrested for driving under an administrative 
license suspension.  Respondent also heard Savage’s arraignment in the second 
case.  Defense counsel in that case eventually suggested that respondent recuse 
herself from further involvement because respondent had represented Savage’s 
former husband in a 1992 divorce.  Respondent declined. 
{¶ 5} Savage’s attorney moved for respondent’s removal.  On January 
24, 2003, the presiding judge of the Greene County Court of Common Pleas 
granted the motion and assigned another judge to hear the Savage case.  
Respondent, however, issued a “judgment entry” a month later setting forth her 
reasons for believing her removal was unjustified.  Apparently acting under the 
mistaken impression that her recusal had not been fully resolved, respondent 
scheduled a trial in the Savage matter for June 27, 2003. 
{¶ 6} On the trial date, an assistant prosecutor sought a continuance, 
citing the order removing respondent.  Respondent denied the continuance and 
proceeded to find Savage guilty, impose a jail sentence and fine, and suspend 
Savage’s driving privileges. 
{¶ 7} Savage petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, and the 
administrative judge of the Greene County Court of Common Pleas granted the 
writ.  Savage was promptly released from jail.  In further proceedings before the 
judge assigned to her case after respondent’s removal, Savage was sentenced and 
fined again, and her driving privileges were again suspended. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found that respondent had 
knowingly continued to act in Savage’s case despite her ordered recusal.  The 
board thus found respondent in violation of Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of 
Conduct and recommended a public reprimand. 
January Term, 2005 
3 
Review 
{¶ 9} We adopt the board’s findings and recommendation.  Thus, for her 
violation of Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct, respondent is hereby 
publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Eugene P. Whetzel, Bar Counsel; Jones Day and J. Todd Kennard, for 
relator. 
 
Michael K. Murry, for respondent. 
______________________