[Cite as In re Disqualification of Sutula, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-441.] 

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF SUTULA. 

CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES v. HUMMER. 

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Sutula, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-441.] 

Judges—Affidavits of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Affiant failed to 

demonstrate bias or prejudice—Disqualification denied.

(No. 15-AP-069—Decided September 14, 2015.) 

ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common 

Pleas Case No. CV-14-824290. 

____________ 

O’CONNOR, C.J. 

{¶ 1} Caryn Groedel, attorney for plaintiff, has filed an affidavit with the 

clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge John Sutula from 

presiding over any further proceedings in the above-captioned breach-of-contract 

case, which Groedel brought on behalf of her law firm against a former client. 

{¶ 2} Groedel claims that Judge Sutula has “repeatedly demonstrated his 

inability to be fair and impartial” to her and her law firm. Judge Sutula has 

responded in writing to the affidavit, stating that he does not have any bias against 

any party in the underlying case. For the reasons explained below, no basis has 

been established to order the disqualification of Judge Sutula. 

{¶ 3} First, Groedel’s primary complaint is that Judge Sutula is biased 

against her because he has denied almost all of her motions but granted all of 

defendant’s motions. Specifically, Groedel avers that the judge has repeatedly 

abused his discretion by allowing defendant to submit filings out of time and in 

violation of the civil rules and discovery orders. It is well settled, however, that a 

litigant’s dissatisfaction with a court’s legal rulings, even if those rulings are 

erroneous, is not grounds for disqualification. In re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Ohio St.3d 1217, 2003-Ohio-7351, 803 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 4. Procedures exist by which 

appellate courts may review—and, if necessary, correct—rulings made by trial 

courts, but reviewing alleged legal errors is not the role of the chief justice in 

deciding an affidavit of disqualification. Further, a party is not entitled to a certain 

number of favorable rulings, and a judge must be free to make rulings without the 

apprehension that a disproportionate number of rulings in favor of one party will 

create the impression of bias toward that party or against its adversary. In re 

Disqualification of Lawson, 135 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2012-Ohio-6337, 986 N.E.2d 6, 

¶ 7. 

{¶ 4} Second, Groedel claims that Judge Sutula disrespected her at a recent 

pretrial conference when he showed her co-counsel a newspaper article about a 

local attorney who had been disciplined for professional misconduct and indicated 

that he might have to “report” Groedel for similar misconduct. According to 

Groedel, Judge Sutula’s suggestion that she may have engaged in inappropriate 

conduct was based on “unsubstantiated allegations” from defendant. In response 

to Groedel’s allegations, Judge Sutula summarized the circumstances and 

statements in the record that led him to caution Groedel’s co-counsel that he might 

have a duty to report Groedel to disciplinary authorities. 

{¶ 5} In general, a judge’s disqualification is not warranted merely because 

the judge files a grievance against a lawyer in a pending case. See In re 

Disqualification of Lynch, 135 Ohio St.3d 1277, 2013-Ohio-910, 986 N.E.2d 1000, 

¶ 5. Indeed, judges have the duty to inform the appropriate authorities when they 

have knowledge that an attorney has violated a disciplinary rule raising a question 

regarding the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. See 

Jud.Cond.R. 2.15(B). Thus, the fact that Judge Sutula cautioned Groedel’s cocounsel that if certain allegations were true he may have a duty to report Groedel, 

does not show that he is biased against her. 
January Term, 2016 

3

{¶ 6} “A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to be biased, and the 

appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome these 

presumptions.” In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2003-Ohio5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5. Those presumptions have not been overcome in this 

case. 

{¶ 7} Accordingly, the affidavit of disqualification is denied. The case may 

proceed before Judge Sutula. 

________________________