 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill9/7/2004
97 and 1998 (Dennis, Margolis, Zazworsky v. Petrella, Peterman and Gass). The panel denies the defense of unreasonable delay given the unusually complex and large nature of this investigation, given the nonjurisdictional nature of the time limits and given Respondent's failure to produce evidence of prejudice to her ability to defend. The panel further finds no present rule or precedent, which imposes a time limit for a person to submit a grievance for investigation. As to the Amended Complaint the panel finds that the investigation of the new matters contained therein was completed timely and that reasonable operation of the rule does not require new matters submitted be completed within a time limit established by the submission of the first grievance in an investigation that involves multiple grievances.
311. Second, Respondent argued that Counts I -- IV and part of Count V should be dismissed on the grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel or precedent. Respondent submits that since allegations regarding timeliness and reversals for abuse of discretion were dismissed in the Respondent's prior disciplinary case in 1996 or did not survive probable cause in the instant complaint that all such remaining allegations should be dismissed. Further, when other Franklin County Common Pleas judges have had similar grievances dismissed against them, precedent bars the instant grievances. The panel concludes it has insufficient evidence to support that res judicata, collateral estoppel or precedent bar the present allegations regarding timeliness and reversals for abuse of discretion.
312. Third, Respondent argues that Disciplinary Counsel has not complied with procedural rules relating to notice and opportunity to be heard prior to a complaint, the Respondent's right to confidentiality and lack of a finding of probable cause for the amended Complaint. The panel finds that the Respondent was provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations of the Complaint before it was filed and there is no evidence that Disciplinary Counsel breached Respondent's rights of confidentiality and that the applicable rules do not provide for probable cause review of amendments to complaints.
313. Fourth, Respondent argues that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because the applicable provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Disciplinary Rules under the Ohio Constitution and the United States Constitution are void for vagueness; violate equal protection and substantive due process. Existing precedent of the Ohio Supreme Court, In Re Harper (1996), 77 Ohio St 3d 211 [673 N.E.2d 1253] found provisions of the Code constitutional. Thus, this defense is not well-taken.
314. Aggravation, Mitigation and Recommended Sanction: The parties' positions on the issues of sanction in this case were diametrically opposed: The Relator argued only factors in aggravation and recommended a sanction of permanent disbarment. The Respondent recommended the dismissal of all charges and did not identify any factors as aggravation or mitigation. The panel majority, considering all the evidence submitted, identifies the following factors in mitigation and aggravation.
315. Mitigation: Judge O'Neill received her law degree from the University of Dayton and was admitted to practice in 1980. She practiced as an Assistant Ohio Attorney General From 1980-1992, serving as Chief of the Mental Health Unit 1980-1985 and as General Counsel for the Ohio State Highway Patrol from 1985-1992. In 1992, she was elected to the Franklin County Common Pleas Court and in 1998 she was re-elected to that position. She is not seeking re-election to the position in November 2004. She ran unsuccessfully for a po
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|