Could a lawyer serve as a Court of Claims Commissioner in the Victims of Crime Reparation section while also working as a Special Assistant Attorney General on unrelated matters?

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988 under the former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility and the former Code of Judicial Conduct, both since superseded (the Rules of Professional Conduct effective February 1, 2007, and the Code of Judicial Conduct effective March 1, 2009). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio rules before relying on any specific provision mentioned here.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who served as a Commissioner with the Court of Claims, Victims of Crime Reparation section, hearing appeals on reparation applications, asked whether it was a conflict of interest to also serve as a Special Assistant Attorney General doing collection work and work for the Ohio Department of Mental Health. The commissioner sat about two days a month on three-member appeal panels and made no initial reparation decisions.

The Board noted that a Court Commissioner is a judge for purposes of the Code of Judicial Conduct, so former Canon 3C(1) would require disqualification where the commissioner's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The Board concluded that the commissioner's impartiality should not be questioned because of the separate part-time role as Special Assistant Attorney General, whose duties did not involve the Court of Claims. The Board acknowledged the possibility that a party before the Court of Claims might perceive favoritism toward the state, but found that perception minimal and effectively countered by how far removed the two positions were, sharing no issues or responsibilities. The Board concluded the lawyer could hold both positions, neither of which involved the Court of Claims.

Common questions

Q: Could the commissioner also work as a Special Assistant Attorney General?

A: Yes. The Board concluded the lawyer could hold both roles because the Special Assistant Attorney General duties did not involve the Court of Claims, so the commissioner's impartiality would not reasonably be questioned under former Canon 3C(1).

Q: Did the risk that parties might perceive favoritism change the result?

A: No. The Board found that perception minimal and effectively countered by how far removed the two positions were, sharing none of the same issues or responsibilities.

Background and rules framework

The opinion treats a Court of Claims Commissioner as a judge subject to the former Code of Judicial Conduct, applying former Canon 3C(1) (disqualification where impartiality might reasonably be questioned), together with the professional-judgment principle of former EC 5-1. The current parallel on personal-interest conflicts is Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 1.7 and Model Rule 1.7.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Former CJC Canon 3C(1), Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct
• Former EC 5-1, Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility

Statutes:

• Ohio Rev. Code 2743.59 and 2743.61 (Court of Claims victims' reparation)

See also

• Ohio BPC Opinion 1988-002: Public Defender Running for Prosecutor
• Ohio BPC Opinion 1988-008: Part-Time Prosecutors Representing Criminal Defendants

Source

• Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
• Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op-88-010.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804

OFFICE OF SECRETARY

OPINION 88-010
Issued June 17, 1988

[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]

SYLLABUS: The professional judgment of a lawyer should be exercised solely for the benefit of his or her client and free of compromising influences and loyalties. A lawyer who is a Commissioner with the Court of Claims, Victims of Crime Reparation section, is not precluded from serving as a Special Assistant Attorney General when those duties do not involve the Court of Claims.

OPINION: We have before us your request for an advisory opinion on whether it is a conflict of interest for you to serve as a Commissioner with the Court of Claims Victims of Crime Reparation section and also serve as a Special Assistant Attorney General doing collection work and work for the Ohio Department of Mental Health. As a Commissioner with the Court of Claims, you hear appeals regarding reparation applications for victims of crime. Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.61 (BALDWIN 1983). The Attorney General's office investigates a victim's application for reparation and makes a recommendation to the single commissioner who makes the decision regarding reparation. Ohio Rev. Code §2743.59 (BALDWIN 1987). That decision can then be appealed to a three person panel of Commissioners. You indicate that you sit approximately two days per month on such an appeal panel and do not make any initial decisions regarding an application.

A Court Commissioner is a judge for the purposes of complying with the Code of Judicial Conduct. Code of Judicial Conduct Compliance Section. Canon 3C(l) of the Code would require you to disqualify yourself if your impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including cases where you have personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. We do not believe that your impartiality should be questioned because of your other part-time position as a Special Assistant Attorney General, whose duties do not involve the Court of Claims.

You indicate you are concerned that someone before the Court of Claims may think you favor the state because of your position as Special Assistant Attorney General. You stress, however, that this is not and would not be the case. Although there is the possibility of such a perception, we believe it is minimal and effectively countered by the fact that the positions are so far removed from each other and involve none of the same issues or responsibilities.

In conclusion, it is our opinion and you are so advised that you may serve as a Court of Claims Commissioner hearing appeals on reparation applications and as a Special Assistant Attorney General doing collection work and representing the Ohio Department of Mental Health, neither of which involve the Court of Claims.

This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion based upon the facts presented and limited to questions arising under the Code of Judicial Conduct and Code of Professional Responsibility.