The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 88 Ohio St.3d 321.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HOAGUE.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoague, 2000-Ohio-340.]
Judges—Misconduct—Six-month suspension stayed—Conviction of coercion—
Acting in a manner that does not promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary—Misusing authority of judicial
office to achieve personal goal of reprimanding persons believed guilty of
reckless driving—Canon 2.
(No. 99-1498—Submitted October 12, 1999—Decided March 29, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-80.
__________________
{¶ 1} On June 18, 1998, respondent, Michael C. Hoague of Delaware, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0024771, a judge of the Delaware Municipal Court, was
driving his car north in Delaware County on U.S. Route 23 with his wife and
mother-in-law as passengers. At that time, he reportedly observed an automobile
being operated recklessly and erratically, driving on the berm to pass some vehicles,
cutting through a gasoline service station to pass other cars, and then driving on the
shoulder or berm again, at a speed well in excess of the posted limit. Respondent
contacted the State Highway Patrol and the Delaware police by means of his cell
phone to report the incident and noted the appearance of the car, the driver, the
passenger in the vehicle, and its license plate number. Respondent reported the
incident to the police but did not file charges.
{¶ 2} The next day respondent ascertained that Jenny Panescu was the
person in whose name the erratically driven vehicle was registered. He then wrote
and mailed a letter to Panescu on Delaware Municipal Court letterhead that stated:
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
“THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER DESERVING YOUR IMMEDIATE
ATTENTION
“Dear Ms. Panescu:
“This is to inform you that a complaint has been made with the Ohio State
Highway Patrol, as well as, the Delaware Police Department concerning your green
1994 Toyota Camry LE automobile. It is alleged that on Friday June 19, 1998 at
approximately 1:00 p.m., you and a male subject were involved in several near
accidents and committed numerous traffic violations along U.S. Route 23 and
connecting roadways in Delaware County. This matter is now under investigation.
“If you wish to avoid possible further legal action being taken against you,
you must contact this Court no later than Friday June 26, 1998 by 4:30 p.m. to
discuss your involvement in this incident. You should call (740) 368-1575 and ask
to speak with either Linda Fisher or Cathy Brooks. When you call you should
inform them that you are responding to this letter. In the event you fail to contact
my office in person or by telephone by such time, I will authorize the filing of any
appropriate criminal and/or traffic charges, the seizure and impoundment of your
motor vehicle and the issuance of a warrant for your arrest.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Hoague, Judge”
{¶ 3} On June 22, 1998, Panescu and Russ Brown, who was driving the
vehicle observed by respondent, responded to the letter by appearing at the
Delaware Municipal Court. In the courtroom, they were seated at the defendant’s
table while respondent sat at the bench. During the meeting, respondent threatened
criminal prosecution of Panescu and Brown and made the following statements:
2
January Term, 2000
“You can say whatever you want, but at this point in time you had probably
best shut your mouth until I’m finished talking, okay?”
“It is also apparent to me today that you went to the Sheriff’s office, so I’ll
take it up with the Sheriff’s department and make sure they have a fuller picture of
what actually happened.”
“I don’t know whether your employer is aware of what you all do on your
lunch hour or whatever or whether that was company related travel or not. I’ll have
a discussion with Mr. Adrian [Panescu and Brown’s employer] about your driving
habits.”
{¶ 4} Later that afternoon, respondent placed a telephone call to Panescu
and Brown’s employer but was unable to contact him.
{¶ 5} On July 22, 1998, respondent wrote an “open letter” of apology
published in the Delaware Gazette, addressed to “the people of Delaware County,
Mrs. Jenny Panescu, Mr. Russell Brown, and Editor, the Gazette,” which
concluded “I sincerely regret my lapse of judgement and apologize to you.”
{¶ 6} On February 23, 1999, respondent was convicted of the second-
degree misdemeanor of coercion with respect to his June 19, 1998 letter to Panescu.
When asked at the trial about writing and sending the letter, respondent said, “At
no time then or now do I feel or believe that I did something that was not within
my legal authority.”
{¶ 7} On December 7, 1998, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging that respondent’s conduct violated several Canons of Judicial
Conduct and the Code of Professional Responsibility. After respondent answered,
a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”)
heard the matter, received stipulations, and found the facts as stated.
{¶ 8} The panel concluded that respondent violated Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct (a judge shall act in a manner that promotes public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary), noted that this matter was an isolated
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
incident in an otherwise unblemished judicial career, and recommended that
respondent receive a public reprimand. The board adopted the findings, conclusion,
and recommendation of the panel.
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Geoffrey Stern, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 9} We adopt the findings of the board. Respondent misused the authority
of his judicial office in an attempt to achieve his personal goal of reprimanding
persons he believed were guilty of reckless driving.
{¶ 10} A judge who observes a crime outside the courtroom has only the
power of an ordinary citizen. Respondent’s proper course would have been to file
charges against Panescu and Brown. Instead, respondent used the power of his
office to achieve his personal ends. On court letterhead he made false statements
to intimidate Panescu and Brown into appearing before him so that he could
personally reprimand them. The language in respondent’s letter, “a complaint has
been made with the Ohio State Highway Patrol,” and “[i]f you wish to avoid
possible further legal action” (emphasis added), implies, if it does not state, that
Panescu had already been charged with a crime.
{¶ 11} Additionally, respondent’s official-sounding jargon, “[it] is alleged”
and “[t]his matter is now under investigation,” together with the threat of
impounding Panescu’s automobile unless she appeared before him, constituted
further intimidating language. To this should be added the fact that respondent was
the only municipal judge on the court and the person who Panescu and Brown might
assume would rule on their case.
4
January Term, 2000
{¶ 12} For writing this letter respondent was properly convicted of the
misdemeanor of coercion.
{¶ 13} But respondent did more. When Panescu and Brown appeared in his
courtroom, they sat at the defendant’s table while he sat at the bench. Without
informing them of the right to counsel, respondent conducted an arrogant
inquisition, finally threatening to contact their employer about their driving habits,
a threat which he apparently later attempted to carry out. He was bound by no
evidentiary rules, nor was there a judge or arbiter present to whom Panescu and
Brown could appeal for protection against unfair interrogation.
{¶ 14} Contrary to respondent’s belief as expressed to the board even after
his letter of apology, we find, as did the board, that neither writing the letter to
Panescu nor holding the inquisitory hearing was within the bounds of his legal
authority. We conclude that respondent failed to act in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
{¶ 15} As we recently noted in Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferreri (1999), 85
Ohio St.3d 649, 654, 710 N.E.2d 1107, 1111, although a judge may feel strongly
about violations of the law, “strong feelings do not excuse a judge from complying
with the judicial canons and the Disciplinary Rules.” Respondent’s conduct in this
case warrants a more severe sanction than recommended by the board. Respondent
is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months with the entire six
months stayed, provided that during the six-month period respondent engages in no
further violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ.,
concur.
F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent and would publicly reprimand
respondent.
__________________
5