TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell, 623 N.E.2d 24 (Ohio 1993)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Ohio Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 8, 1993
Docket
No. 93-1298
Judges
Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
Citations
623 N.E.2d 2468 Ohio St. 3d 7

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct serve many purposes. Foremost among them are to ensure a legal system of the highest caliber and to instill and maintain public confidence in that system. Respondent’s acts not only do not further these goals, they undermine them. Such conduct would be unacceptable by any member of society. We, however, find it particularly intolerable by an attorney and abhorrent for a member of the judiciary.

In all but one instance, respondent was either directly or indirectly in a position of influence over the complainant. Similarly, his actions were almost exclusively directed at those most likely to be intimidated by his position. Four of the victims, for example, were inexperienced attorneys engaged in a new job early in their legal careers.

Respondent’s defense that he intended no harm is contradicted by those instances in which his behavior continued despite objections from the victim that his actions were unwelcome and offensive. Similarly, respondent’s claim that none of the complainants had expressed problems with any of the cases they had before respondent ignores the adverse effect his actions had on the complainants’ perception of their ability to effectively practice before him. Accordingly, we concur in the findings of the board and suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year.

Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

  • (imposing a one-year suspension from the practice of law on a judge who over a period of years made unwelcome or offensive sexual remarks to and/or engaged in offensive physical contact with six women, including four young attorneys over whom he exercised authority as an employer or a judge)
1995: 11996: 11998: 12000: 12004: 12011: 12019: 12023: 119952026peak 1995 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett2023 Ohio 4752, 230 N.E.3d 1170
  2. In re Complaint Against Judge Harper673 N.E.2d 1253 (Ohio 1996)
  3. MISSISSIPPI COM'N ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE v. Spencer725 So. 2d 171 (Miss. 1998)
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill815 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio 2004) · Concurrence
  5. In re Cicchetti743 A.2d 431 (Pa. 2000)
  6. Disciplinary Counsel v. Horton (Slip Opinion)2019 Ohio 4139

Most recent

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett2023 Ohio 4752, 230 N.E.3d 1170
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. Horton (Slip Opinion)2019 Ohio 4139
  3. In re Abrams257 P.3d 167 (Ariz. 2011)
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill815 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio 2004) · Concurrence
  5. In re Cicchetti743 A.2d 431 (Pa. 2000)
  6. MISSISSIPPI COM'N ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE v. Spencer725 So. 2d 171 (Miss. 1998)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list