Judge’s OVI Nets Public Reprimand

On August 12, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio publicly reprimanded Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Monica Hawkins after her conviction for OVI, a first-degree misdemeanor. She is the third judge to be publicly reprimanded this year for such conduct.

The incident occurred on January 31, 2019 in Pickerington, Ohio, where Judge Hawkins was arrested after a citizen called 911 reporting a suspected intoxicated driver.

Judge Hawkins denied consuming alcohol stating that she just got lost while driving home. The officer that stopped her smelled alcohol, noticed a bleeding knot on her forehead and what appeared to be vomit on her coat and on the car floor. Judge Hawkins identified herself as a judge. After failing several sobriety tests, Judge Hawkins was arrested for OVI.

Judge Hawkins refused to provide a breath sample and, after the police obtained a warrant, refused to allow a blood draw to test her alcohol level. Eventually four hospital employees held her down so that the blood could be drawn. Results of the blood test showed a blood-alcohol level of 0.199, over twice the legal limit of 0.08.

Judge Hawkins pled guilty to OVI and was sentenced to 90 days in jail, with 87 days suspended and a $375 fine. She was permitted to complete a 72-hour driver-intervention program rather than actual jail time.

In disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that Judge Hawkins violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.1 (failure to comply with the law) and Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 (failure to act in a manner that promotes the public confidence and independence, integrity and impartiality of the jury and to avoid the impropriety and the appearance of impropriety). (2020-Ohio-4023).

Judge Doherty violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 and Jud.Cond.R. 1.3 (using the prestige of the office for personal gain) for a similar violation and received a public reprimand (2020-Ohio-1422). Judge Gonzalez violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.1 and Jud.Cond.R. 1.3 for similar behavior, and, likewise, received a public reprimand (2020-Ohio-3259). Judge Marshall violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.1, Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 and Prof.Cond.R. 84.(h) for similar conduct and received a public reprimand (2015-Ohio-1187).

Magistrates May Not Contribute to Judicial Campaigns — Sometimes

On August 3, 2018, the Board of Professional Conduct released Board Opinion 2018-04 giving its opinion about a magistrate’s ability to contribute personal funds to a judge’s election campaign.  In so doing, it withdrew Board Op. 1990-24 and Board Op. 2002-13.

The Opinion states that magistrates may not contribute personal funds to the judicial campaigns of a candidate seeking office in the same court or division of the court in which the magistrate is appointed.  However, magistrates can contribute personal funds to a political party, a nonjudicial campaign or to a judicial candidate who is seeking office in a different court or division of the court to which the magistrate was appointed.

The Opinion notes that magistrates, both full and part-time are considered judges and are bound by Ohio’s Code of Judicial Conduct.  As a judicial officer and public employee, Canon 4 restricts a magistrate’s participation in certain political processes.  This, it reasons, allows the magistrate to remain free from political influence.  In so doing, the magistrate may uphold the promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judicial branch.

Jud.Cond.R. 4.4(C)(1) prohibits a judicial candidate from accepting contributions from any court employee of a court in which the judicial candidate serves.  Accordingly, a magistrate, as a court employee, cannot contribute to the judicial campaign of a candidate in the court or division the magistrate serves.  However, Jud.Cond.R. 4.4(I)-(J) permits the magistrate to contribute to the judicial campaigns of candidates seeking election in other courts or divisions.

A magistrate may contribute personal funds to a political party without restrictions.

A magistrate is also prohibited from publicly endorsing or opposing any candidate for public office, including a judicial office.  This abuses the prestige of the judicial office held.  An example of an improper endorsement would be the use of the magistrate’s name on invitations to candidate fundraisers or on signs or in mailings in support of a candidate.  Public endorsement also includes distributing campaign literature, speaking to voters, participating in campaign phone banks or placing yard signs on behalf of a candidate.  There is, however, an exception for a judicial candidate whose spouse is seeking judicial office.

In short, a magistrate’s designation as a judicial officer and court employee does curtail the political freedom the magistrate otherwise would have.  A magistrate may not endorse or oppose any candidate for public office, whether judicial or otherwise.  A magistrate also may not contribute to the judicial campaign of a candidate in the magistrate’s court or division but may do so for a judicial candidate in another court or division.  And a magistrate may always contribute to a political party.