Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Wochna

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Wochna, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4492.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-4492 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WOCHNA. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wochna, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-4492.] 
Judge—Misconduct—Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of 
Professional Conduct for conduct that erodes public confidence in the 
judiciary and that creates the appearance of judicial impropriety and for 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation—Conditionally stayed six-month suspension. 
(No. 2018-0814—Submitted July 18, 2018—Decided November 8, 2018.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2017-049. 
________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Charles Francis Wochna, of Bay Village, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0015445, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985.  In 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
October 2017, relator, disciplinary counsel, alleged that while serving as a 
magistrate in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, 
Wochna violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional 
Conduct by failing to accurately report his work hours and leave on his timecard. 
{¶ 2} The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors and jointly recommended that Wochna be 
suspended from the practice of law for six months, all stayed on condition.  Based 
on those stipulations and the evidence adduced at the hearing, a panel of the Board 
of Professional Conduct agreed that Wochna committed the charged misconduct 
and found that the parties’ recommended sanction was reasonable and appropriate.  
The board adopted the panel’s report and recommendation, and no objections have 
been filed. 
{¶ 3} We adopt the board’s findings and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} As a magistrate, Wochna was required to work eight hours a day, 40 
hours a week.  If he worked less than eight hours a day, he was required to use his 
accrued leave time to make up the difference.  Pursuant to the juvenile court’s 
flexible-schedule policy, Wochna submitted a request to work from 7:00 a.m. to 
3:00 p.m. beginning in December 2015.  The court approved his request. 
{¶ 5} Beginning on June 13, 2016, and continuing every two weeks 
thereafter, Wochna received an automated e-mail from Kronos, the court’s 
electronic timekeeping system, stating: 
 
Please review and approve your time card; your signature 
indicates that you have verified and approved the accuracy of your 
time card.  Please be advised that falsification of electronic time 
records is a work rule violation and may result in discipline 
including removal from employment. 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
 
{¶ 6} After receiving a complaint alleging that Wochna had excessive 
absences from work, the juvenile court audited the timecards submitted by all the 
court’s magistrates from March 15 to September 2, 2016.  The court compared the 
times the magistrates reported on their timecards to records of their employee-
identification-keycard swipes and video footage from courthouse security cameras.  
The audit showed that Wochna had falsely entered his start or end time into his 
Kronos timecard on 99 of the 122 work days during that period and received 
$2,155.61 in pay for 51.98 hours that he did not work. 
{¶ 7} Wochna’s time discrepancies ranged from a few minutes to over four 
hours and inflated his work time by an average of .53 hours per day.  For example, 
on March 18, 2016, Wochna entered the parking garage at 7:15 a.m. and left the 
parking garage at 11:25 a.m.  However, on his timecard that day, Wochna falsely 
reported that he arrived at 7:00 a.m. and left at 3:00 p.m., thereby inflating his work 
time by 3.83 hours.  Despite the fact that he failed to accurately record the times 
that he commenced work, ended work, or used earned leave time, Wochna 
personally approved each of the 13 audited biweekly timecards. 
{¶ 8} Following a September 2016 disciplinary hearing conducted by his 
employer, Wochna was found to have violated seven workplace rules prohibiting 
(1) falsification of documents, (2) dishonesty and misrepresentation, (3) misuse or 
theft of county property, (4) conduct unbecoming a court employee, (5) job 
abandonment and/or failure to report for duty as scheduled, (6) leaving one’s work 
area without permission, and (7) other acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, or 
nonfeasance.  The court terminated his employment effective October 3, 2016. 
{¶ 9} Wochna attempted to make restitution both before and after his 
workplace disciplinary hearing, but his employer declined the offer.  In February 
2018, the county finally accepted his payment. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 10} In accord with the parties’ stipulations, the board adopted the panel’s 
findings that Wochna violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 (requiring a judge or magistrate to 
act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, 
integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and to avoid impropriety and the 
appearance of impropriety) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for judicial and professional misconduct, 
we consider all relevant factors, including the ethical duties violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), any other relevant 
factors, and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 12} As aggravating factors, the parties and board agreed that Wochna 
acted with a dishonest or selfish motive and engaged in a pattern of misconduct.  
See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2) and (3).  Agreed mitigating factors included the 
absence of prior discipline; a timely, good-faith effort to make restitution; full and 
free disclosure to the board and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
proceedings; positive character evidence; and the imposition of other penalties or 
sanctions (i.e., the termination of Wochna’s employment as a magistrate).  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6). 
{¶ 13} “Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct 
and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety.”  Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 
Comment 1.  For that reason, judges and other persons authorized to perform 
judicial functions—like magistrates—are subject to the highest standards of ethical 
conduct.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Elum, 133 Ohio St.3d 500, 2012-Ohio-
4700, 979 N.E.2d 289, ¶ 21; Application, Section I(B), Code of Judicial Conduct 
(“A judge * * * is a lawyer who is authorized to perform judicial functions within 
a court * * *” [emphasis added]).  In determining the appropriate sanction for 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
Wochna’s misconduct, the board examined Disciplinary Counsel v. Kramer, 149 
Ohio St.3d 425, 2016-Ohio-5734, 75 N.E.3d 1174. 
{¶ 14} Kramer was found to have falsified his time records while serving as 
a hearing officer at the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision—though he was not 
subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct because he did not perform judicial 
functions within a court.  Investigations revealed at least 129 discrepancies between 
the times Kramer reported on his timesheets and the records of his parking-garage 
activity.  We found that Kramer violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice).  And because we found that Kramer’s misconduct was 
limited to his timekeeping practice and that he was unlikely to commit future 
misconduct, we suspended him from the practice of law for one year, stayed in its 
entirety on the condition that he engage in no further misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 35.  Like 
Wochna, Kramer had no prior disciplinary record, submitted evidence of his good 
character, and had other sanctions imposed for his misconduct, as he was forced to 
resign from his employment.  Id. at ¶ 19.  And both attorneys acted with a dishonest 
or selfish motive and engaged in a pattern of misconduct.  But while Wochna 
immediately accepted responsibility for his actions, Kramer failed to acknowledge 
the wrongful nature of his misconduct.  In his resignation letter, Kramer denied 
having committed any violation of law.  Id. at ¶ 14-15.  At his disciplinary hearing, 
he testified that his false entries were “mistakes” and “[s]loppy bookkeeping,” id. 
at ¶ 20, and eventually stated that his conduct was “wrong,” but the panel did not 
find his testimony to be credible, id. at ¶ 14-15. 
{¶ 15} While recognizing that Wochna’s misconduct “tarnished the 
reputation of the judiciary,” the board concluded that his immediate acceptance of 
responsibility for his misconduct, combined with his immediate offer of repayment 
and his cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary process, warranted the 
imposition of a lesser sanction than that imposed in Kramer.  Therefore, the board 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
recommended that Wochna be suspended from the practice of law for six months 
and that the entire suspension be stayed on the condition that he engage in no further 
misconduct.  Having reviewed the record, we agree with the board’s findings and 
recommendation. 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, we suspend Charles Francis Wochna from the practice 
of law for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that he 
engage in no further misconduct.  If Wochna fails to comply with the condition of 
the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the full six-month suspension.  
Costs are taxed to Wochna. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and 
DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Jerome A. Milano, for respondent. 
_________________