[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Repp , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3923.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2021-O HIO -3923

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . R EPP . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Repp , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3923.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of th e Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct—One-year su spension from the practice of law and from judicial office without pay. (No. 2021-0757—Submitted July 13, 2021—Decided November 9, 2021 .)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of P rofessional Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2020-070.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Judge Mark Edward Re pp, of Tiffin, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0058853, was admitte d to the practice of law i n Ohio in 1992. He was first elected judge of the Ti ffin Municipal Court in Seneca County in 2002. In 2013, the Tiffin Municipal Court was combined with the Fostoria Municipal CourtS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 to create the Tiffin-Fostoria M unicipal Court. Repp has served as the sole judge of
that court since that time. {¶ 2} In a December 2020 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, al leged that Repp committed four ethical violations arising from (1) hi s undignified, improper, and discourteous demeanor toward a criminal defendant and the defendant’s girlfriend in his c ourtroom, (2) his decision to or der the defendant’s girlfriend, who was quietly obser ving the proceedings in his co urtroom, to submit to a drug test, and (3) his or der finding her in direct contemp t of court and sentencing her to ten days in ja il 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 thre e-member panel of
the Board of Professional Conduc t found that Repp had committed the charged
misconduct and recommended that h e be suspended from the practi ce of law for one year, with six months of the suspension stayed on the condi tion that he engage in no further misconduct. The board adopted the findings of fa ct and conclusions of law of the hearing panel but recommended that Repp be suspen ded from the practice of law for one year w ith no stay of the suspension, th at he be immediately suspended from judicial office w ithout pay for the duration of his disciplinary suspension, and that he be ordered to pay the costs of these pr oceedings. The parties jointly waived their right t o object to the board’s report. {¶ 4} Based on our review of the recor d, we adopt the board’s finding s of
misconduct and reco mmended 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 a rraignment and probation-violation hearing of t he girls’ father, T.D. T.D. ha d 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 ofJanuary Term, 2021

3 Transition (“PIVOT”). He was also charged with several other o ffenses, including driving under suspension. A.O. sa t in the back row of Repp’s c ourtroom and waited quietly for T.D.’s ca se to be called. {¶ 6} Repp addressed A.O. from the be nch on several occasions, and th e video recording of the proceedings does not show that A.O. brou ght 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 the re? 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 st ated, “That’s good. I wish all of us could say that. Right, [A.O.]?” A.O. did not r espond to Repp’s comments. {¶ 7} Before calling the next case, Re pp stated, “Oh, before we get s tarted, I think [A.O.’s] under the influe nce. I want her drug tested.” A.O. did not have a case pending before Repp at that time, was not on probation, an d 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 administere d. A.O. complied,
and while she waited to be teste d, she texted T.D.’s mother, wh o was still watching A.O.’s daughters. She told T.D.’s mother that she was afraid t o 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 probati on officer told her that A.O. coul d not leave the courthouse until she took a drug test. And when A.O. requested a lawyer, she was told that she was noteligible for courtappointed counsel because she had not been charged with a crime . When A.O. said that she would not take a drug tes t, the probation officer stat ed that A.O. would go back in front of Repp af ter he was done with lunch.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 {¶ 10} Approximately ten minutes after A.O. had left the courtroom, Re pp called T.D.’s case. T.D. appeared by video from the Seneca Cou nty 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 kno w, not too bad. Just going to work, coming home, going to work, coming home and slipped up and got caught, you know.” Repp res ponded, “Slipped up and got cau ght. Yeah, baby. Slipped up and got caught.” {¶ 11} The prosecutor recited the charges and T.D. entered a no-contes t plea. After accepting T.D.’s plea, Repp stated that he had bee n looking for T.D. in the PIVOT program and then asked T.D. whether he or A.O. had re cently overdosed. At the time, Repp did not possess any verified evid ence that T.D. or A.O. had recently overdosed. Aft er reading the police report, which indicated that A.O. was in the car with T.D. at the time of his arrest, Repp s tated, “Wow. [A.O.’s] down here. She’s probably going to go to jail too. Who’s watc hing the kids? [T.D.]?” When T.D. stated that his dad was probably taking car e of the children, Repp laughed and said, “Your dad. I heard your dad went to jai l 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 e vidence 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 t o be served concurrently. The prosecutor recommended an additional 150-day jail sentence for T.D.’s probation violations. Whe n T.D. asked whether the 150-d ay jail term would be concurrent with his 180-day jail term, Repp replied, “Uh, wh at do you think, [T.D.]? Am I giving two for one today? I don’t think so. I h ate to saddle the Seneca County Jail with you, but, [T.D.], you’ve been so, you k now, defiant about this and haven’t followed through with a thing. I’m trying to help you out. I knowJanuary 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 cour troom and informed Repp that A.O. had refused to take a drug test. W hen Repp asked why, A.O. stated that she did not want to take the test, becaus e she did not think she had done anything to be in trouble. Repp stated, “Okay. W ell, you come into my courtroom, I think you’re high, you’re in trouble.” A.O. re plied, “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 journa l entry. We’re going to hold you in contempt. I’m going to submit and commit you fo r ten days. When you decide you want to take a tes t, then I’ll, then we’ll talk about this again. All right?” A.O. replied, “Okay.” Re pp stated, “Is there anything else? Remand to custody. You have the keys, [A.O.]” {¶ 14} Repp issued a judgment entry findi ng 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, handcuf fed, and transported to the c ounty jail. {¶ 15} At the jail, A.O. experienced several indignities. She was req uired to take a pregnancy test and undergo two full-body scans. The female officer who
conducted the scans a llegedly detected anomalies that she belie ved 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. A lthough the female officer attemp ted to cover A.O.’s breast and genital areas on the s creen while the male officer r eviewed the scan, the male officer told the female officer that that was unnecessary, and then the male
officer asked A.O. whether she ha d pierced nipples. A.O. did n ot respond. She was then handcuffed and transpor ted to Tiffin Mercy Hospital wh ere she was required to submit to a second preg nancy test and either a CT s can or an MRI scan.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 No contraband was found, and she was returned to the jail. The parties stipulated
that if A.O. had testified at R epp’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 abo ut her children and told a correctional officer that she was willing to take the dr ug test because she wanted to go home. The officer replied that A.O. was not allow ed 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 he aring, she would have stated t hat she became even more upset after speaking to the correctional officer, believin g 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 appea l and a motion requesting that A.O.’s sentence be stayed pending the outcome o f 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 petiti on was never docketed. {¶ 18} Repp set a hearing on A.O.’s motion requesting that her sentenc e be stayed for later that same day. Before that hearing, Repp met in his chambers with Henry, Seneca County Prosecuting Attorney Derek DeVine, and Sen eca County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael K elbley. DeVine stated that h e was unaware of any legal authority allowing a judge to hold a spectator in contempt for refusing to take a drug test. Repp offe red no legal authority to suppor t his conduct in finding A.O. in contempt of court but mai ntained that he had a right to control his

courtroom. {¶ 19} Later that day, during the heari ng on A.O.’s motion, DeVine mov ed to vacate Repp’s contempt finding on the grounds that (1) it wa s not supported by law and (2) it violated the United States and Ohio Constitution s. Henry concurred.January Term, 2021

7 Repp agreed to vacate his contempt finding on the condition tha t A.O. agree to submit to a drug-trea tment assessment; however, he no longer ha d 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 co urt “retains jurisdiction over issues not inc onsistent with the appellate co urt’s jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the j udgment appealed from”). After that hearing, A.O. was released from jail. {¶ 20} On September 21, 2020, the Third District Court of Appeals reve rsed 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 observat ions or findings by [Repp] of [A.O.’s] conduct in t he courtroom supporting his stat ed 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 submi t to a drug test” and that his “command compelli ng her to submit to a drug test w as improper.” Id

. The court of appeals therefore concluded that Repp’s finding th at 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 fo und that Repp’s conduct violated P rof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudi cial to the administration o f justice) and Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 (requiring a judge to act at all times in a man ner that promotes public confidence in the independe nce, integrity, and impartial ity of the judiciary), 2.2 (requiring a judge to uphold and apply the law and to perfo rm all duties of judicial office fairly and imp artially), and 2.8(B) (requiring a judge to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litig ants, jurors, witnesses, lawye rs, and others with whom the judge deals in an offici al capacity). We adopt these findings of
misconduct.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

8 Sanction {¶ 22} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider al l relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorne y 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—Rep p 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 misco nduct 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. exhib ited arrogance and a desire to prove that his susp icions about A.O.’s impairment w ere accurate and
consistent with unsubstantiate d rumors that he had heard about her and T.D.’s past drug use. In addition, the board found that Repp’s hearing tes timony 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 ha ve a prior disciplinary record and tha t he had made full and free di sclosure to the board and had exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinar y proceedings. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (4). It also attributed some mitiga ting 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 reput ation. Most of the authors praised Repp’s invol vement in PIVOT; however, it do es 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 s anction 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 ma gistrate 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 audibl e in his courtroom. Bachman caught up with the woman, escorted her to h is courtroom, summarily held her in direct cont empt of court, and sentenced h er to three days in jail. When she objected to his actions, he increased the sanct ion to ten days. Consistent with the parties’ s tipulations, we found that Bachma n violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2, and 2.8(B). {¶ 27} We adopted four of the mitigating factors that had been stipula ted to by the parties, finding that Bach man had no prior discipline, m ade full and free
disclosure to the board and e xhibited a cooperative attitude to ward the disciplinary proceedings, presented evidence of his good character and reput ation, and had other sanctions imposed for his conduct— namely the loss of his employ ment. 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 th e judge acted with a selfish or dishonest motive and c onsidered that as an aggravati ng factor. In addition to the parties’ stipulation that Bachman had caused harm to a v ulnerable victim, we also found that his failure to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his misconduct
constituted a third a ggravating factor. {¶ 28} In Bachman , we noted that judicial o fficers have the inherent authority to summarily punish a person for direct contempt to s ecure 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 acknow ledged that R.C. 2705.01 permits a judicial officer to summarily punis h misbehavior in or
near the courtroom that “ ‘obstruc t[s] the administration of ju stice.’ ” Id. , quoting
R.C. 2705.01. But we found that the scream outside Bachman’s c ourtroom could be characterized only “as a distraction at best or a momentary interruption to theS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

10 proceedings at worst” and that the only conduct that rose to th e 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 dig nity of the courts, not to demean and intimidate people,” and that abusing that pow er serves to cast doubt on the judicial officer’s impartiality and to weaken publ ic 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 judi cial power that deprives a per son of his or her liberty is a signi ficant violation of the public trust, we rejected the board’s recommendation of a fully s tayed six-month suspension a nd suspended Bachman from the practice of law for six months “to make crysta l clear to the public that this type of judicial mis conduct 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 t he courtroom—let alone his orde r that she be drug
tested. In addition to vio lating 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 direc ted 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 t he result of the security and medical screenings she had to endure during her in carceration, on top of the anxiety regarding the care and well-being of her two you ng children. Furthermore, Bachman had a significant mitigating factor that w as not present in this case—namely that Bachman ha d other sanctions imposed for h is 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 hisJanuary Term, 2021

11 misconduct. But the board noted t hat his expressions of remors e and acceptance of responsibility were tempered by othe r statements that he made t o the board and by his overall demeanor. Specifica lly, the board noted that at on e point during his testimony, Repp stated that he had “tried” to accept responsibi lity 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 det ermined that Repp’s conduct was substantially more egregious t han the conduct at issue in Bachman and recommends that Repp be suspended from the practice of law for one year wi th no stay. We agree with the board’s assessmen t 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 misconduc t 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 w ithout pay for the duration of his disciplinary suspension. Costs are taxed to Repp. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

_________________ Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond and Audrey E. Varwig, Assistant Disc iplinary Counsel, for relator. Montgomery Jonson, L.L.P., George D. Jonson, and Lisa M. Zaring , for respondent.

_________________