[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Repp, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3923.] 

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. 2021-OHIO-3923

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. REPP.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Repp, Slip Opinion No. 

2021-Ohio-3923.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the 

Code of Judicial Conduct—One-year suspension from the practice of law 

and from judicial office without pay. 

(No. 2021-0757—Submitted July 13, 2021—Decided November 9, 2021.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct 

of the Supreme Court, No. 2020-070. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Judge Mark Edward Repp, of Tiffin, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0058853, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992. He 

was first elected judge of the Tiffin Municipal Court in Seneca County in 2002. In 

2013, the Tiffin Municipal Court was combined with the Fostoria Municipal Court 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 2

to create the Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court. Repp has served as the sole judge of 

that court since that time. 

{¶ 2} In a December 2020 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, alleged 

that Repp committed four ethical violations arising from (1) his undignified, 

improper, and discourteous demeanor toward a criminal defendant and the 

defendant’s girlfriend in his courtroom, (2) his decision to order the defendant’s 

girlfriend, who was quietly observing the proceedings in his courtroom, to submit 

to a drug test, and (3) his order finding her in direct contempt of court and 

sentencing her to ten days in jail for her refusal to submit to a drug test. 

{¶ 3} The parties submitted comprehensive stipulations of fact and 

misconduct and 45 stipulated exhibits. After a hearing, a three-member panel of 

the Board of Professional Conduct found that Repp had committed the charged 

misconduct and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for 

one year, with six months of the suspension stayed on the condition that he engage 

in no further misconduct. The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions 

of law of the hearing panel but recommended that Repp be suspended from the 

practice of law for one year with no stay of the suspension, that he be immediately 

suspended from judicial office without pay for the duration of his disciplinary 

suspension, and that he be ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings. The parties 

jointly waived their right to object to the board’s report. 

{¶ 4} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 

misconduct and recommended sanction. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 5} On March 11, 2020, A.O. left her two young daughters in the car with 

their grandmother and entered Repp’s courtroom to observe the arraignment and 

probation-violation hearing of the girls’ father, T.D. T.D. had been arrested the 

previous day on a bench warrant for violating the terms of his probation by failing 

to appear at a county drug-court program, called Participating in Victory of 
January Term, 2021 

3

Transition (“PIVOT”). He was also charged with several other offenses, including 

driving under suspension. A.O. sat in the back row of Repp’s courtroom and waited 

quietly for T.D.’s case to be called. 

{¶ 6} Repp addressed A.O. from the bench on several occasions, and the 

video recording of the proceedings does not show that A.O. brought any attention 

to herself. During the proceedings in an unrelated case, Repp stated, “Going to be 

lots of drug tests today. Is that [T.D.’s] girlfriend back there? I don’t know. I 

thought maybe it was.” After the defendant in that case stated that he did not 

believe in using drugs, Repp stated, “That’s good. I wish all of us could say that. 

Right, [A.O.]?” A.O. did not respond to Repp’s comments. 

{¶ 7} Before calling the next case, Repp stated, “Oh, before we get started, 

I think [A.O.’s] under the influence. I want her drug tested.” A.O. did not have a 

case pending before Repp at that time, was not on probation, and had never been 

charged with or convicted of a drug-related offense. Moreover, she had made no 

disturbance in the courtroom. 

{¶ 8} The bailiff directed A.O. to follow him out of the courtroom to the 

probation department so that the drug test could be administered. A.O. complied, 

and while she waited to be tested, she texted T.D.’s mother, who was still watching 

A.O.’s daughters. She told T.D.’s mother that she was afraid to leave the 

courthouse because she thought that Repp would issue a warrant for her arrest. She 

also texted her sister and asked her to come get her daughters because T.D.’s mother 

had to go to work. 

{¶ 9} When A.O.’s sister arrived at the probation office, the probation 

officer told her that A.O. could not leave the courthouse until she took a drug test. 

And when A.O. requested a lawyer, she was told that she was not eligible for courtappointed counsel because she had not been charged with a crime. When A.O. said 

that she would not take a drug test, the probation officer stated that A.O. would go 

back in front of Repp after he was done with lunch. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 4

{¶ 10} Approximately ten minutes after A.O. had left the courtroom, Repp 

called T.D.’s case. T.D. appeared by video from the Seneca County jail. Repp 

greeted him by stating, “Hold it. Hold it. Who’s that vision? That vision of a man 

I haven’t seen in so long? Ho, just getting by, doing his own thing. Holy Smokes. 

How you doing. [T.D.]? How you been?” T.D. replied, “You know, not too bad. 

Just going to work, coming home, going to work, coming home and slipped up and 

got caught, you know.” Repp responded, “Slipped up and got caught. Yeah, baby. 

Slipped up and got caught.” 

{¶ 11} The prosecutor recited the charges and T.D. entered a no-contest 

plea. After accepting T.D.’s plea, Repp stated that he had been looking for T.D. in 

the PIVOT program and then asked T.D. whether he or A.O. had recently 

overdosed. At the time, Repp did not possess any verified evidence that T.D. or 

A.O. had recently overdosed. After reading the police report, which indicated that 

A.O. was in the car with T.D. at the time of his arrest, Repp stated, “Wow. [A.O.’s] 

down here. She’s probably going to go to jail too. Who’s watching the kids? 

[T.D.]?” When T.D. stated that his dad was probably taking care of the children, 

Repp laughed and said, “Your dad. I heard your dad went to jail for you, too; is 

that right?” T.D. replied that he was not sure, and Repp said, “Yes, he did,” 

although he had no verified evidence to support that statement.

{¶ 12} Repp sentenced T.D. to a 180-day jail term for one case, and a 30-

day jail term for a second case. Repp ordered the jail terms to be served 

concurrently. The prosecutor recommended an additional 150-day jail sentence for 

T.D.’s probation violations. When T.D. asked whether the 150-day jail term would 

be concurrent with his 180-day jail term, Repp replied, “Uh, what do you think, 

[T.D.]? Am I giving two for one today? I don’t think so. I hate to saddle the 

Seneca County Jail with you, but, [T.D.], you’ve been so, you know, defiant about 

this and haven’t followed through with a thing. I’m trying to help you out. I know 
January Term, 2021 

5

you overdosed since then. I’m giving you the 150 days. That’s consecutive * * * 

not concurrent. Good luck.” 

{¶ 13} After lunch, the probation officer took A.O. back into the courtroom 

and informed Repp that A.O. had refused to take a drug test. When Repp asked 

why, A.O. stated that she did not want to take the test, because she did not think 

she had done anything to be in trouble. Repp stated, “Okay. Well, you come into 

my courtroom, I think you’re high, you’re in trouble.” A.O. replied, “Okay. I’m 

not, though.” Repp then asked A.O. whether she wanted to take the drug test, and 

when she stated that she did not, he said: “Can I have a journal entry. We’re going 

to hold you in contempt. I’m going to submit and commit you for ten days. When 

you decide you want to take a test, then I’ll, then we’ll talk about this again. All 

right?” A.O. replied, “Okay.” Repp stated, “Is there anything else? Remand to 

custody. You have the keys, [A.O.]” 

{¶ 14} Repp issued a judgment entry finding A.O. in direct contempt of

court and sentencing her to the Seneca County jail for ten days or until she 

submitted to a drug test. That entry, however, did not specify the conduct that led 

to his finding her in contempt. A.O. was immediately remanded to the custody of 

the Seneca County sheriff, handcuffed, and transported to the county jail. 

{¶ 15} At the jail, A.O. experienced several indignities. She was required 

to take a pregnancy test and undergo two full-body scans. The female officer who 

conducted the scans allegedly detected anomalies that she believed could have been 

contraband inside A.O.’s body. A more senior officer, who was a male, was called 

to review A.O.’s body scan. Although the female officer attempted to cover A.O.’s 

breast and genital areas on the screen while the male officer reviewed the scan, the 

male officer told the female officer that that was unnecessary, and then the male 

officer asked A.O. whether she had pierced nipples. A.O. did not respond. She 

was then handcuffed and transported to Tiffin Mercy Hospital where she was 

required to submit to a second pregnancy test and either a CT scan or an MRI scan. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 6

No contraband was found, and she was returned to the jail. The parties stipulated 

that if A.O. had testified at Repp’s disciplinary hearing, she would have stated that 

all these events made her feel uncomfortable. 

{¶ 16} After A.O. returned to the jail, she and T.D. saw each other in

passing. A few hours later, A.O. became scared and worried about her children and 

told a correctional officer that she was willing to take the drug test because she 

wanted to go home. The officer replied that A.O. was not allowed to take the test 

and that she already “had her chance.” Repp stipulated that if A.O. had been called 

to testify at his disciplinary hearing, she would have stated that she became even 

more upset after speaking to the correctional officer, believing that she may have 

to spend ten days in jail. 

{¶ 17} On the evening of her arrest, A.O. retained attorney Dean Henry to 

represent her. The next morning, Henry filed a notice of appeal and a motion 

requesting that A.O.’s sentence be stayed pending the outcome of her appeal in the 

Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court. He also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

with the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas—though for reasons not explained 

in the record, the petition was never docketed. 

{¶ 18} Repp set a hearing on A.O.’s motion requesting that her sentence be 

stayed for later that same day. Before that hearing, Repp met in his chambers with 

Henry, Seneca County Prosecuting Attorney Derek DeVine, and Seneca County 

Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Kelbley. DeVine stated that he was unaware 

of any legal authority allowing a judge to hold a spectator in contempt for refusing 

to take a drug test. Repp offered no legal authority to support his conduct in finding 

A.O. in contempt of court but maintained that he had a right to control his 

courtroom. 

{¶ 19} Later that day, during the hearing on A.O.’s motion, DeVine moved 

to vacate Repp’s contempt finding on the grounds that (1) it was not supported by 

law and (2) it violated the United States and Ohio Constitutions. Henry concurred. 
January Term, 2021 

7

Repp agreed to vacate his contempt finding on the condition that A.O. agree to 

submit to a drug-treatment assessment; however, he no longer had jurisdiction due 

the pendency of A.O.’s appeal. See In re S.J., 106 Ohio St.3d 11, 2005-Ohio-3215, 

829 N.E.2d 1207, ¶ 9 (once an appeal is perfected, the trial court “retains 

jurisdiction over issues not inconsistent with the appellate court’s jurisdiction to 

reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment appealed from”). After that hearing, A.O. 

was released from jail. 

{¶ 20} On September 21, 2020, the Third District Court of Appeals reversed 

Repp’s judgment finding A.O. in contempt and remanded the cause. The court of 

appeals found the record to be “devoid of any specific observations or findings by 

[Repp] of [A.O.’s] conduct in the courtroom supporting his stated belief that she 

was under the influence while observing court proceedings.” State v. [A.O.], 3d 

Dist. Seneca No. 13-20-05, 2020-Ohio-4514, ¶ 29. The court of appeals further 

found that Repp “was without the authority compel A.O. to submit to a drug test” 

and that his “command compelling her to submit to a drug test was improper.” Id. 

The court of appeals therefore concluded that Repp’s finding that A.O. was in direct 

contempt of court “was without cause and constituted an invalid exercise of his 

contempt power under R.C. 2705.02(A).” Id. On remand, Repp dismissed the case. 

{¶ 21} Based upon these facts, the parties stipulated and the board found 

that Repp’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from 

engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 

Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 (requiring a judge to act at all times in a manner that promotes 

public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary), 

2.2 (requiring a judge to uphold and apply the law and to perform all duties of 

judicial office fairly and impartially), and 2.8(B) (requiring a judge to be patient, 

dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with 

whom the judge deals in an official capacity). We adopt these findings of 

misconduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 8

Sanction 

{¶ 22} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated, the 

aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 

imposed in similar cases. 

{¶ 23} The board found that three aggravating factors were present—Repp 

acted with a selfish or dishonest motive, he committed multiple offenses, and he 

caused harm to two vulnerable victims. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), (4), and (8). 

The board specifically rejected Repp’s testimony that his misconduct was 

motivated by a desire to help A.O. Instead, it found that the audio and video 

recordings of Repp’s in-court statements to A.O. and T.D. exhibited arrogance and 

a desire to prove that his suspicions about A.O.’s impairment were accurate and 

consistent with unsubstantiated rumors that he had heard about her and T.D.’s past 

drug use. In addition, the board found that Repp’s hearing testimony demonstrated 

that he was very frustrated with T.D. and that he had channeled that frustration 

toward A.O. 

{¶ 24} As for mitigating factors, the board found that Repp did not have a 

prior disciplinary record and that he had made full and free disclosure to the board 

and had exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings. See

Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (4). It also attributed some mitigating effect to six 

letters (two from attorneys, one from a former justice of this court, and three from 

community members) attesting to Repp’s good character and reputation. Most of 

the authors praised Repp’s involvement in PIVOT; however, it does not appear that 

the authors were informed of the nature of Repp’s professional misconduct. See

Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5). 

{¶ 25} In determining the appropriate sanction for Repp’s misconduct, the 

board found that Disciplinary Counsel v. Bachman, 163 Ohio St.3d 195, 2020-

Ohio-6732, 168 N.E.3d 1178, was most instructive. 
January Term, 2021 

9

{¶ 26} Bachman, who was the chief magistrate of the Hamilton County 

Court of Common Pleas, General Division, stopped a hearing and left the bench to 

locate a woman whose momentary scream in the hallway was audible in his 

courtroom. Bachman caught up with the woman, escorted her to his courtroom, 

summarily held her in direct contempt of court, and sentenced her to three days in 

jail. When she objected to his actions, he increased the sanction to ten days. 

Consistent with the parties’ stipulations, we found that Bachman violated 

Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2, and 2.8(B). 

{¶ 27} We adopted four of the mitigating factors that had been stipulated to 

by the parties, finding that Bachman had no prior discipline, made full and free 

disclosure to the board and exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 

proceedings, presented evidence of his good character and reputation, and had other 

sanctions imposed for his conduct—namely the loss of his employment. As in this 

case, in Bachman, we rejected the parties’ stipulation that the judge had acted

without a selfish or dishonest motive and instead found that the judge acted with a 

selfish or dishonest motive and considered that as an aggravating factor. In addition 

to the parties’ stipulation that Bachman had caused harm to a vulnerable victim, we 

also found that his failure to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his misconduct 

constituted a third aggravating factor. 

{¶ 28} In Bachman, we noted that judicial officers have the inherent 

authority to summarily punish a person for direct contempt to secure the effective 

administration of justice and the dignity of the court, see id., 163 Ohio St.3d 195, 

2020-Ohio-6732, 168 N.E.3d 1178, at ¶ 23, citing Denovchek v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. 

of Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14, 15, 520 N.E.2d 1362 (1988). We also acknowledged 

that R.C. 2705.01 permits a judicial officer to summarily punish misbehavior in or 

near the courtroom that “ ‘obstruct[s] the administration of justice.’ ” Id., quoting 

R.C. 2705.01. But we found that the scream outside Bachman’s courtroom could 

be characterized only “as a distraction at best or a momentary interruption to the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 10 

proceedings at worst” and that the only conduct that rose to the level of obstructing 

the administration of justice that day was Bachman’s. Id. We emphasized that “the 

power to punish for contempt is properly used to secure the dignity of the courts, 

not to demean and intimidate people,” and that abusing that power serves to cast 

doubt on the judicial officer’s impartiality and to weaken public perception of the 

integrity of the judiciary. Id. at ¶ 25, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Cox, 113 Ohio 

St.3d 48, 2007-Ohio-979, 862 N.E.2d 514, ¶ 41; and Disciplinary Counsel v. Karto, 

94 Ohio St.3d 109, 114, 760 N.E.2d 412 (2002). 

{¶ 29} Recognizing that an abuse of judicial power that deprives a person 

of his or her liberty is a significant violation of the public trust, we rejected the 

board’s recommendation of a fully stayed six-month suspension and suspended 

Bachman from the practice of law for six months “to make crystal clear to the public 

that this type of judicial misconduct will not be tolerated.” Id. at ¶ 33, 36. 

{¶ 30} In this case, the board found that in contrast to the victim in

Bachman, who briefly interrupted a court proceeding, A.O. did absolutely nothing

to justify Repp’s attention in the courtroom—let alone his order that she be drug 

tested. In addition to violating Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2, and 2.8(B), as Bachman did, 

Repp has admitted that his conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d). Repp’s 

undignified, improper, and discourteous demeanor had been directed at two

victims—A.O. and T.D—as opposed to Bachman’s single victim. In addition, A.O. 

suffered great personal indignities and emotional distress as the result of the 

security and medical screenings she had to endure during her incarceration, on top 

of the anxiety regarding the care and well-being of her two young children. 

Furthermore, Bachman had a significant mitigating factor that was not present in 

this case—namely that Bachman had other sanctions imposed for his misconduct 

by virtue of the loss of his employment. 

{¶ 31} In contrast to the judge in Bachman, 163 Ohio St.3d 195, 2020-Ohio6732, 168 N.E.3d 1178, Repp acknowledged the wrongful nature of his 
January Term, 2021 

11 

misconduct. But the board noted that his expressions of remorse and acceptance of 

responsibility were tempered by other statements that he made to the board and by 

his overall demeanor. Specifically, the board noted that at one point during his 

testimony, Repp stated that he had “tried” to accept responsibility for his 

misconduct—which suggested that he had not completely done so. Therefore, the 

board did not give this distinction from Bachman much weight. 

{¶ 32} On these facts, the board determined that Repp’s conduct was 

substantially more egregious than the conduct at issue in Bachman and recommends 

that Repp be suspended from the practice of law for one year with no stay. We 

agree with the board’s assessment and conclude that a one-year suspension with no 

stay will best protect the public and send a strong message to the judiciary that this 

type of judicial misconduct will not be tolerated. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 33} Accordingly, Mark Edward Repp is suspended from the practice of

law in Ohio for one year. Pursuant to Gov.Jud.R. III(7)(A), he is immediately 

suspended from judicial office without pay for the duration of his disciplinary 

suspension. Costs are taxed to Repp. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 

and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond and 

Audrey E. Varwig, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

Montgomery Jonson, L.L.P., George D. Jonson, and Lisa M. Zaring, for 

respondent. 

_________________