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

re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Falter, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-1705.] 

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-1705

IN RE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN COMPLAINT AGAINST FALTER. 

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

may be cited as In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Falter, Slip 

Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-1705.] 

Judges—Judicial campaigns—Misconduct—Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) prohibits judicial 

candidates from knowingly or recklessly disseminating false information 

about opponents—Candidate’s erroneous statements regarding when and 

why opponent had moved to county violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A)—Public 

reprimand affirmed. 

(No. 2020-0407—Submitted January 13, 2021—Decided May 20, 2021.) 

APPEAL from the Order of the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Karen Kopich Falter, of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0066770, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1996. 

Pursuant to Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D), a five-judge commission concluded that while 

Falter was a judicial candidate in 2020, she committed two violations of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 2

Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A), which prohibits a judicial candidate from disseminating 

campaign material about an opponent either knowing that it is false or in reckless 

disregard of whether or not it is false. The commission publicly reprimanded Falter 

and ordered her to pay a $1,000 fine and the costs of the proceedings. Falter appeals 

the commission’s sanction. For the reasons explained below, we affirm. 

Background

{¶ 2} In March 2017, former Governor John Kasich appointed Curt 

Hartman—the complainant in this disciplinary action—to a vacant seat as a judge 

of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Hartman was later defeated in 

the November 2018 general election. 

{¶ 3} In 2020, Hartman and Falter were opponents in the Republican 

primary for a different seat on the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.1

 In 

February of that year, Falter’s campaign committee sent to 202 Republican voters 

a letter stating that Hartman had “moved to Hamilton County 3 years ago to take a 

judicial appointment from Governor John Kasich in March, 2017.” (Underlining 

sic.) The letter additionally stated that Falter had grown up in Hamilton County, 

had served for 23 years as a public servant in the county, and was recommended by 

the Hamilton County Republican Party Judicial Screening Committee. 

{¶ 4} Hartman filed a judicial-campaign grievance against Falter with the 

Board of Professional Conduct. Pursuant to Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(B), a probable-cause 

panel of the board found that probable cause existed to file a formal complaint, and 

the board’s director certified a complaint charging Falter with two violations of 

Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A). The complaint alleged that in Falter’s campaign letter, she 

made statements about when and why Hartman had moved to Hamilton County that 

she either knew were false or that she had made with a reckless disregard of whether 

or not they were false. 

 

1. Hartman won the primary election but was defeated in the November 2020 general election. 
January Term, 2021 

3

{¶ 5} The matter proceeded to a hearing before a three-member panel of the 

board. Hartman, Falter, and one of Falter’s campaign consultants testified. Based 

on the hearing evidence, the panel found that Falter’s statements about Hartman in 

her letter were false: Hartman had moved to Hamilton County in May 2014 with 

the goal of running for a seat in the Ohio General Assembly, not—as Falter had 

alleged—in 2017 in order to obtain a judicial appointment in that same year. And 

according to the panel, a check of public records would have easily shown that 

Falter’s allegations were untrue. Yet Falter, the panel found, made no effort to 

confirm the truthfulness of her allegations against Hartman and instead chose to 

rely on statements from her campaign consultants and “what was essentially 

courthouse and party-insider gossip or rumors” about when and why Hartman had 

moved to Hamilton County. The panel determined that Falter had acted with 

reckless disregard as to whether or not the statements in her letter were false and 

that she had therefore violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A). The panel recommended that 

she be publicly reprimanded and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and the costs of the 

proceedings.

{¶ 6} A five-judge commission appointed by this court pursuant to 

Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D)(1) reviewed the record of the proceedings, the panel’s report, 

Falter’s objections to the report, and Hartman’s responses to her objections. In 

April 2020, the commission found that the panel had not abused its discretion and 

that the record supported its findings by clear and convincing evidence. 158 Ohio 

St.3d 1458, 2020-Ohio-1413, 142 N.E.3d 680. The commission therefore publicly 

reprimanded Falter, fined her $1,000, and ordered her to pay the costs of the 

proceedings. 

{¶ 7} Pursuant to Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(E), Falter appeals, arguing that we 

should dismiss the charges against her or, in the alternative, vacate the public 

reprimand. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 4

Falter’s Objections to the Commission’s Findings of Misconduct

{¶ 8} Falter sets forth five objections to the commission’s findings that she 

violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A). For ease of analysis, we will address the issues posed 

by her objections out of order. 

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

{¶ 9} Jud.Cond.R. 4.3 provides: 

During the course of any campaign for nomination or 

election to judicial office, a judicial candidate, by means of 

campaign materials, including sample ballots, advertisements on

radio or television or in a newspaper or periodical, electronic

communications, a public speech, press release, or otherwise, shall 

not knowingly or with reckless disregard do any of the following: 

(A) Post, publish, broadcast, transmit, circulate, or distribute 

information concerning the judicial candidate or an opponent, either 

knowing the information to be false or with a reckless disregard of 

whether or not it was false. 

{¶ 10} The primary issue in this appeal is whether Falter distributed her 

letter “with a reckless disregard of whether or not it was false” for purposes of 

Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A). In her first objection, Falter argues that this language 

incorporates the actual-malice standard established in New York Times Co. v. 

Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), and its progeny. 

Under that standard, Falter asserts, a false statement must have been made with a 

specific mental state. She also asserts that “reckless disregard” as to a statement’s 

“truth or falsity” is a term of art that requires “ ‘sufficient evidence to permit the 

conclusion that the [maker of the statement] in fact entertained serious doubts as to 

the truth of his publication,’ ” Varanese v. Gall, 35 Ohio St.3d 78, 80, 518 N.E.2d 
January Term, 2021 

5

117 (1988), quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 

L.Ed.2d 262 (1968), or to permit the conclusion that there was “a high degree of 

awareness of its probable falsity,” Varanese at 80. Falter claims that because there 

was no evidence presented that she entertained serious doubt as to the truth of her 

statements about Hartman, she lacked the necessary mens rea “required by 

Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) and the First Amendment.” 

{¶ 11} Falter is correct that Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) requires a specific mens rea. 

In In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against O’Toole, 141 Ohio St.3d 355, 2014-

Ohio-4046, 24 N.E.3d 114, we affirmed the constitutionality of the portion of 

Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) at issue in this case and concluded that it requires “a specific 

mental state as to the information’s accuracy (with knowledge of its falsity or with 

reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity),” id. at ¶ 41. 

{¶ 12} We disagree, however, with Falter’s assertion that Jud.Cond.R. 

4.3(A) incorporates the subjective actual-malice definition employed in publicfigure defamation cases. Although the language of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) resembles 

the actual-malice standard established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, id. at 280 

(defining “actual malice” as acting “with knowledge that [the statement] was false 

or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”), there are important 

differences between the interests served by defamation law and those served by 

ethical rules for judges and judicial candidates. As the Supreme Court of Michigan 

concluded, the subjective actual-malice standard is inappropriate in this context and 

adopting it “ ‘would immunize accusations, however reckless or irresponsible, from 

censure as long as the attorney uttering them did not actually entertain serious 

doubts as to their truth.’ ” In re Chmura, 461 Mich. 517, 543, 608 N.W.2d 31 

(2000), quoting In re Holtzman, 78 N.Y.2d 184, 192, 573 N.Y.S.2d 39, 577 N.E.2d 

30 (1991). Instead, the determination whether a judicial candidate recklessly 

disregarded the truth or falsity of campaign material is an objective one. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 6

{¶ 13} We previously determined that an “objective version” of the actualmalice test applies in attorney-discipline proceedings arising from a lawyer’s false 

statements impugning the integrity of a judge. We explained: 

“Defamation actions seek to remedy an essentially private wrong by 

compensating individuals for harm caused to their reputation and 

standing in the community. Ethical rules that prohibit false 

statements impugning the integrity of judges, by contrast, are not 

designed to shield judges from unpleasant or offensive criticism, but 

to preserve public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of our 

system of justice.” 

* * * 

* * * [T]he state’s compelling interest in preserving public 

confidence in the judiciary supports applying a standard in 

disciplinary proceedings different from that applicable in 

defamation cases. Under the objective standard, an attorney may 

still freely exercise free speech rights and make statements 

supported by a reasonable factual basis, even if the attorney turns 

out to be mistaken. 

(Citations omitted.) Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416, 2003-

Ohio-4048, 793 N.E.2d 425, ¶ 29, 31, quoting Standing Commt. on Discipline of 

the United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of California v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 

1430, 1437 (9th Cir.1995). 

{¶ 14} Similar reasoning applies here. The purpose of this proceeding is 

not to compensate any person for injuries to his or her reputation. Rather, sanctions 

against judges and judicial candidates for violating Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial 

Conduct “inform the public of the self-regulating nature of the legal profession and 
January Term, 2021 

7

enhance public confidence in the integrity of judicial proceedings.” O’Toole, 141 

Ohio St.3d 355, 2014-Ohio-4046, 24 N.E.3d 114, at ¶ 64. “Ohio has a compelling 

interest in promoting and maintaining an independent judiciary, ensuring public 

confidence in the independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence of judges, 

and ensuring that the conduct of judicial candidates furthers, rather than impairs, 

these interests.” Id. at ¶ 29. 

{¶ 15} In addition, the limits on a judicial candidate’s speech are not 

necessarily coextensive with the limits of the First Amendment. The United States 

Supreme Court has recognized that “[s]tates may regulate judicial elections 

differently than they regulate political elections, because the role of judges differs 

from the role of politicians.” Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433, 446, 

135 S.Ct. 1656, 191 L.Ed.2d 570 (2015); see also Disciplinary Counsel v. 

Tamburrino, 151 Ohio St.3d 148, 2016-Ohio-8014, 87 N.E.3d 158, ¶ 17 (noting 

that First Amendment principles in other contexts do not apply “to disciplinary 

sanctions for knowingly false or recklessly false statements by judicial 

candidates”); O’Toole at ¶ 22-29. 

{¶ 16} Thus, Ohio’s interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity 

of its judiciary supports applying a standard in judicial-candidate-discipline 

proceedings different from that applicable in defamation cases. And an objective 

standard for determining violations of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) strikes a balance 

between a judicial candidate’s First Amendment rights and the state’s compelling 

interests. Falter’s argument in this case fails to account for the fact that “judicial 

elections fundamentally alter the constitutional calculus,” Platt v. Bd. of Commrs. 

on Grievances and Discipline of the Ohio Supreme Court, 894 F.3d 235, 267 (6th 

Cir.2018). Therefore, whether Falter subjectively had serious doubts about the 

truth of her allegations is not the sole determinative factor in analyzing whether she 

acted with the requisite mens rea. We accordingly overrule this objection. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 8

The alleged ambiguity of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A)

{¶ 17} In her fifth objection to the misconduct findings, Falter argues that 

if the actual-malice standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is inapplicable, 

Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) “does not provide notice” of what it prohibits and “encourages 

arbitrary enforcement.” Falter therefore requests that we “find that Jud.Cond.R. 

4.3(A) is ambiguous and dismiss the charges.” 

{¶ 18} Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) is not ambiguous; it “applies to specific 

communications made by judicial candidates under narrowly defined 

circumstances.” O’Toole, 141 Ohio St.3d 355, 2014-Ohio-4046, 24 N.E.3d 1114, 

at ¶ 41. As noted above, to violate Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A), the judicial candidate must 

have acted with a specific mental state as to the campaign material’s accuracy: 

either knowing the information was false or with a reckless disregard of whether or 

not it was false. A judicial candidate acts knowingly if he or she has “actual 

knowledge of the fact in question,” although a person’s knowledge may be inferred 

from circumstances. Jud.Cond.R. 4.6(G). A candidate “acts ‘recklessly’ if the 

result is possible and the candidate chooses to ignore the risk.” In re Judicial 

Campaign Complaint Against Moll, 135 Ohio St.3d 156, 2012-Ohio-5674, 985 

N.E.2d 436, ¶ 11. Negligently made false statements or negligent misstatements 

are not prohibited by the rule. 

{¶ 19} In determining whether a judicial candidate acted with the requisite 

mens rea for purposes of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A), we consider factors similar to those 

used when determining whether a lawyer has violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.2(a) by 

making a statement that the lawyer either knew was false or made “with reckless 

disregard as to its truth or falsity” concerning the integrity of a judicial officer. We 

look to the nature of the candidate’s statements and the context in which they were 

made to determine whether the candidate had a reasonable factual basis for making 

them. Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallo, 131 Ohio St.3d 309, 2012-Ohio-758, 964 

N.E.2d 1024, ¶ 19; accord Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall, 142 Ohio St.3d 1, 
January Term, 2021 

9

2014-Ohio-4815, 27 N.E.3d 481, ¶ 59 (“In determining whether an attorney has 

knowingly or recklessly made false statements concerning the integrity of a judicial 

officer, we consider whether the attorney had a reasonable factual basis for making 

the statements”). 

{¶ 20} Determining whether a judicial candidate made a false statement

with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity may require weighing evidence and 

assessing witness credibility—as in any other attorney-discipline case. But 

contrary to Falter’s position, that process does not make enforcement of 

Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) “arbitrary.” In O’Toole, we affirmed the constitutionality of 

the portion of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) at issue in this case, id. at ¶ 41, and Falter has 

failed to sufficiently explain why this language is ambiguous. 

The evidence supporting the violations

{¶ 21} Falter argues in her third objection that even if the standard set forth 

in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is inapplicable, the charges should be dismissed 

because she did not act recklessly. According to Falter, she relied on reputable 

campaign consultants—not gossip—when she included the statements about 

Hartman in the letter. She similarly argues in her fourth objection that because she 

relied on her consultants, the record lacked clear and convincing evidence of a 

Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) violation. 

{¶ 22} Upon our review of the record, we agree with the commission that 

the record supports the panel’s findings that Falter violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A). 

{¶ 23} At the panel hearing, Hartman testified that he moved from Clermont 

County to Hamilton County in May 2014. He submitted records from the Hamilton 

County Auditor’s office and the Hamilton County Board of Elections showing that 

he purchased a condominium in Hamilton County in May 2014, registered to vote 

and cast a provisional ballot in Hamilton County in May 2014, and voted in every 

Hamilton County election since May 2014. Hartman also testified that he moved 

to Hamilton County to be closer to his Cincinnati legal practice and to potentially 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 10 

run for a seat in the Ohio General Assembly, although he later decided against it. 

In 2016, he learned about the judicial vacancy on the Hamilton County Court of 

Common Pleas and was appointed to the open seat in 2017. Thus, Hartman 

testified, both of Falter’s statements about his move—that he moved to Hamilton 

County in 2017 and that he did so for the purpose of taking a judicial appointment—

were false. 

{¶ 24} Falter admitted that she had personally typed the February 2020

campaign letter stating that Hartman had “moved to Hamilton County 3 years ago 

to take a judicial appointment from Governor John Kasich in March, 2017.” 

(Underlining sic.) She also admitted that prior to sending the letter, she had not 

researched Hartman’s voting history or his property ownership. And she admitted 

that her statements about Hartman turned out to be untrue. 

{¶ 25} As her defense, Falter claimed that the information in her letter came 

from her campaign consultants and that she expected the consultants to ensure the 

accuracy of her campaign messages. But Falter also testified that she did not know 

how her consultants allegedly knew this information about Hartman and that she 

never specifically asked them to confirm the accuracy of the allegations or to 

research his voting history. And one of Falter’s campaign consultants testified that 

the letter was “technically one of [Falter’s] projects;” that at the time the letter was 

being prepared, he did not know when Hartman had moved to Hamilton County; 

that he did not know where some of the information in the letter came from; and 

that although there had been discussions about the validity of Hartman’s residency, 

there was “never really a specific time given nor did [the consultants] actually do 

the full research on it.” The campaign consultant also testified that he had reviewed 

Falter’s letter for “grammatical errors,” and he explained that “when a client does 

something on their own, I trust that they have good knowledge of what they’re 

putting in there,” especially when his consulting firm had no part in creating the 

campaign material. 
January Term, 2021 

11 

{¶ 26} Similar to her argument on appeal, Falter also testified that she did 

not rely on rumors when she prepared the campaign letter. But when Falter was 

asked whether she had done anything to verify her allegation regarding the reason 

Hartman had moved to Hamilton County, she responded that it was “common 

knowledge within the legal system.” Falter learned of this common knowledge, 

she testified, through conversations with “different people within the Republican 

Party” and over lunch with assistant prosecutors who had practiced before Hartman 

when he was a judge. In attempting to further explain the basis for this knowledge 

about Hartman, Falter stated that the talk of the legal community was that Hartman 

had “moved from Clermont County to Hamilton County to be eligible to take an 

appointment” and that it was “just the common discussion of why Mr. Hartman 

ended up in Hamilton County.” 

{¶ 27} Based on this testimony, the panel concluded that Falter “chose to 

believe what was essentially courthouse and party-insider gossip or rumors without 

making any effort to check the truthfulness of the allegation.” The panel also found 

that Falter’s contract with her consultants did not expressly require them to do “fact 

checking” of her campaign materials. Because Falter’s statements were the type 

that must be verified and because she failed to take any action to do so, the panel 

concluded that she acted with reckless disregard of whether or not the statements 

were false. 

{¶ 28} To be sure, the panel heard conflicting testimony. But similar to 

attorney-discipline proceedings, “it is of no consequence that the * * * findings of 

fact are in contravention of [the] respondent’s or any other witness’s testimony. 

‘Where the evidence is in conflict, the trier of facts may determine what should be 

accepted as the truth and what should be rejected as false.’ ” Disciplinary Counsel 

v. Zingarelli, 89 Ohio St.3d 210, 217, 729 N.E.2d 1167 (2000), quoting Cross v. 

Ledford, 161 Ohio St 469, 478, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). And “[u]nless the record 

weighs heavily against a hearing panel’s findings, we defer to the panel’s credibility 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 12 

determinations, inasmuch as the panel members saw and heard the witnesses 

firsthand.” Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 164, 2006-Ohio-550, 

842 N.E.2d 35, ¶ 24. 

{¶ 29} The record here does not weigh heavily against the panel’s findings. 

Falter made a pointed attack against her election opponent, citing a specific date 

and intention. Her accusations, however, were false, and as the panel and 

commission found, a cursory search of public records would have revealed that her 

allegations were untrue. Yet Falter made no effort to verify her statements. 

Although she now argues that she relied on her consultants to fact-check her letter, 

one of her consultants provided contrary testimony at the hearing and described the 

letter as Falter’s “project.” Considering the specific factual nature of her 

statements, verification of them was necessary. She should have personally 

confirmed the accuracy of her allegations or ensured that her consultants had done 

so. A judicial candidate cannot avoid discipline by claiming that she merely 

repeated statements from her campaign consultants without taking some action to 

ensure the accuracy of those statements or to inquire about the credibility of the 

sources. 

{¶ 30} In the end, Falter had no reasonable basis to include her allegations 

about Hartman in her letter and chose to ignore the risk that they were false. By 

repeating gossip about her election opponent without making any effort to verify 

the accuracy of her allegations, she acted with a reckless disregard of whether or 

not her statements were false. 

The truth or falsity of Falter’s statements

{¶ 31} Falter argues in her second objection that the charges should be 

dismissed because her allegations against Hartman were “substantially true” and 

that any inaccuracies were immaterial. Specifically, she asserts that it was 

immaterial whether Hartman moved in 2014 or 2017, because the purpose of her 

letter was to identify him as a “carpetbagger” and the facts regarding Hartman’s 
January Term, 2021 

13 

move support the gist of that characterization. She also argues that her letter was 

immaterial because only a fraction of the Hamilton County electorate received it. 

{¶ 32} We need not determine whether, as Falter contends, Jud.Cond.R. 

4.3(A) incorporates a “materiality test.” Falter’s statements about Hartman were 

false and material to the campaign: she claimed that he moved to Hamilton County 

three years after he actually did and for the purpose of filling a judicial vacancy that 

did not exist at the time he moved. Her statements were not reasonably susceptible 

to a truthful interpretation. In addition, it is irrelevant under Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) 

whether she distributed the letter to 200 or 2,000 voters, and 202 households in a 

primary election is not an insignificant number of voters. 

{¶ 33} “However much or however little truth-bending the public has come 

to expect from candidates for political jobs, ‘[j]udges are not politicians,’ and a 

‘State’s decision to elect its judiciary does not compel it to treat judicial candidates 

like campaigners for political office.’ ” Winter v. Wolnitzek, 834 F.3d 681, 693 (6th 

Cir.2016), quoting Williams-Yulee, 575 U.S. at 437-438, 135 S.Ct. 1656, 191 

L.Ed.2d 570. We overrule this objection. 

{¶ 34} Having overruled Falter’s objections to the commission’s findings 

of misconduct, we affirm the commission’s conclusion that she committed two 

violations of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A). The rules in Canon 4 “are intended to ensure that 

judges and judicial candidates campaign in a way that fosters and enhances respect 

for, and confidence in, the judiciary.” O’Toole, 141 Ohio St.3d 355, 2014-Ohio4046, 24 N.E.3d 1114, at ¶ 25. Falter violated both the plain language of the rule 

and the purpose behind it. 

Falter’s Objections to the Commission’s Sanction

{¶ 35} In addition to challenging the commission’s misconduct findings, 

Falter argues that the public reprimand should be vacated. “On an appeal of a 

commission’s order of sanctions, our review is limited to whether the commission 

abused its discretion.” O’Toole at ¶ 61. “ ‘A decision constitutes an abuse of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 14 

discretion when it is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.’ ” Moll, 135 Ohio 

St.3d 156, 2012-Ohio-5674, 985 N.E.2d 436, at ¶ 17, quoting State ex rel. Ebbing 

v. Ricketts, 133 Ohio St.3d 339, 2012-Ohio-4699, 978 N.E.2d 188, ¶ 13.

{¶ 36} In reviewing whether the commission abused its discretion, we 

consider the purpose of sanctions. We have often recognized that “the primary 

purpose of disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the offender, but to protect the 

public.” Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204, 2004-Ohio-4704, 

815 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 53; see Disciplinary Counsel v. Farris, 157 Ohio St.3d 527, 

2019-Ohio-4810, 138 N.E.3d 1134, ¶ 17. But in judicial-candidate-discipline 

proceedings, we have also explained that the purpose of sanctions is to inform other 

judicial candidates of the seriousness of such misconduct and to deter similar 

violations in future elections. See O’Toole at ¶ 64. “[T]he public’s faith in the 

disciplinary proceedings against judges and judicial candidates is fostered by 

sanctions that reflect the unique injuries on the public by judges and judicial 

candidates who are not truthful in the information they disseminate.” Id.

{¶ 37} The commission determined that a public reprimand was appropriate 

because merely ordering Falter to pay a fine and costs would not serve the 

deterrence purpose of a sanction. Falter raises two objections to the public 

reprimand. 

Aggravating and mitigating factors

{¶ 38} Falter first argues that the commission erred by failing to consider 

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

acknowledges that the hearing panel considered those factors, but she additionally 

argues that the panel misapplied them. For example, she argues that the panel failed 

to give her mitigating credit for retracting her statements about Hartman after she 

learned that they were inaccurate. 

{¶ 39} With respect to Falter’s argument about the commission, we hold

that the commission did not err by omitting consideration of the aggravating and 
January Term, 2021 

15 

mitigating factors in its order. Gov.Jud.R. II(5) provides that “a grievance that 

alleges a violation by a judicial candidate of Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial 

Conduct during the course of a campaign for judicial office shall be brought, 

conducted, and disposed of in accordance with this rule and Gov.Bar R. V, as 

modified by this section.” (Emphasis added.) Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D)(1) requires the 

commission to review the hearing panel’s report. If the commission “concludes the 

record supports the hearing panel’s finding that a violation of Canon 4 has occurred 

and there has been no abuse of discretion by the hearing panel, the commission may 

enter an order that includes one or more of the following:” a disciplinary sanction, 

a cease-and-desist order, a fine, an assessment of costs, or an assessment of attorney 

fees. Nothing in Gov.Jud.R. II(5) required the commission to also independently 

weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors applicable in other attorney-discipline 

cases. 

{¶ 40} With respect to the hearing panel’s findings, we commend Falter for 

issuing a retraction letter shortly after Hartman’s campaign notified her that the 

letter was inaccurate. But that fact does not mean that her public reprimand should 

be vacated. Nor has she established that the panel’s weighing of the other 

aggravating or mitigating factors should have any impact on her sanction. 

The public reprimand 

{¶ 41} Falter next argues that her disciplinary sanction should be vacated 

because she “has been sufficiently reprimanded in public.” She claims that 

although she quickly retracted her campaign letter, she received negative media 

attention, which culminated in her loss in the primary election. With her objections, 

Falter submitted screenshots of social-media posts criticizing her for the false 

campaign letter. She argues that in light of the damage to her reputation, the 

commission’s public reprimand was excessive. 

{¶ 42} Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(C)(3) provides for a formal hearing before a 

hearing panel and there is no provision in Gov.Jud.R. II(5) for the introduction of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 16 

additional evidence when the proceedings are in this court on appeal. Similar to 

other attorney-discipline cases, we would consider accepting additional evidence at 

this late stage only in the most exceptional circumstances. See Lorain Cty. Bar 

Assn. v. Weir, 156 Ohio St.3d 566, 2019-Ohio-2151, 130 N.E.3d 275, ¶ 13. No

exceptional circumstances exist here that would allow Falter to introduce evidence 

for the first time in her objections. Nor has she otherwise established why alleged 

critical comments in the media or on social media could somehow substitute for a 

public reprimand from this court. 

{¶ 43} We therefore overrule Falter’s two additional objections to the

public reprimand. Falter has not established that the commission acted in an 

unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner. A public reprimand is in line 

with other cases in which judicial candidates have violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A). 

See O’Toole, 141 Ohio St.3d 355, 2014-Ohio-4046, 24 N.E.3d 1114; Moll, 135 

Ohio St.3d 156, 2012-Ohio-5674, 985 N.E.2d 436. And the sanction will serve as 

a deterrent to prevent other judicial candidates from knowingly or recklessly 

disseminating false information during their campaigns. See O’Toole at ¶ 64. 

Conclusion

{¶ 44} Because we overrule Falter’s objections to the commission’s 

misconduct findings and because the commission did not abuse its discretion in 

issuing sanctions against Falter for her violations of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A), we affirm 

the commission’s order. 

Order affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and GALLAGHER, POWELL, HALL, DONNELLY, and 

BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 

STEWART, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion. 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting for 

KENNEDY, J. 
January Term, 2021 

17 

STEPHEN W. POWELL, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting 

for FISCHER, J. 

MICHAEL T. HALL, J., of the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting for 

DEWINE, J. 

_________________ 

STEWART, J., concurring in judgment only.

{¶ 45} I agree with the per curiam opinion’s holding that an objective, rather 

than a subjective, standard applies in determining whether a candidate for judicial 

office has violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A). I also agree that in this case, respondent, 

Karen Kopich Falter, did not have a reasonable factual basis for the statements she 

published about her opponent, Curt Hartman. I nevertheless concur in judgment 

only, because I think it is important to acknowledge that the test we are using to 

determine whether a false statement was published with “a reckless disregard of 

whether or not it was false” under Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) is in fact a negligence test. 

{¶ 46} We are ruling that Falter violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) when she 

published information that she gathered from speaking with her campaign 

consultants and with members of the bar without undertaking to fact-check it. She 

could have easily discovered the correct information by checking the county 

auditor’s website to see when Hartman had purchased a condominium in Hamilton 

County and by checking Hartman’s voting records. At bottom, the reason for this 

court’s conclusion that Falter violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) is that she failed to act 

as a prudent judicial candidate would have acted when she failed to diligently 

investigate the information before publishing it. In other words, Falter negligently 

published false information. See, e.g., Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 9 

Ohio St.3d 177, 180, 459 N.E.2d 555 (1984), quoting Embers Supper Club, Inc. v. 

Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 9 Ohio St.3d 22, 457 N.E.2d 1164 (1984), 

syllabus, modified on other grounds, Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Publishing Co., 

32 Ohio St.3d 176, 512 N.E.2d 979 (1987) (plurality opinion) (the negligence 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 18 

standard asks “ ‘whether the defendant acted reasonably in attempting to discover 

the truth or falsity or defamatory character of the publication’ ”). The per curiam 

opinion’s insistence that “[n]egligently made false statements or negligent 

misstatements are not prohibited by” Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A), majority opinion at ¶ 18, 

cannot therefore be reconciled with the fact that this court has adopted and applied 

an objective-reasonableness test. 

_________________ 

Finney Law Firm, L.L.C., and Christopher P. Finney, for complainant. 

Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & Teetor, L.L.C., Donald C. Brey, and Matthew 

R. Aumann, for respondent. 

_________________