The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 94 Ohio St.3d 213.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LISOTTO.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lisotto, 2002-Ohio-638.]
Judges—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Accepting football tickets from
attorney who has come or is likely to come before the judge—Failing to
avoid appearance of impropriety—Failing to file complete and timely
financial disclosure statements.
(No. 01-1559—Submitted October 16, 2001—Decided January 30, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-08.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} In 1993 and 1994, while respondent, Robert G. Lisotto of
Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0003668, was a judge in the
Mahoning County Court, and in 1997 and 1998 when he was judge of the Mahoning
County Court of Common Pleas, he accepted up to two tickets to attend a maximum
of eight Pittsburgh Steeler National Football League home games, per season, from
attorney Stuart Banks. During that time, Banks appeared as counsel of record in
numerous cases before respondent. However, there was no evidence of any favor,
preference, or improper action between respondent and Banks in any case in which
Banks appeared before respondent.
{¶ 2} While attending a judges’ conference in September 1999, respondent
realized that his acceptance of tickets from Banks might be improper, and on
September 26, 1999, respondent gave Banks a check for $3,000 to pay for the
football game tickets he received in the years in question. In April 2001, respondent
amended his financial disclosure forms for the years 1993, 1997, and 1998 to reflect
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
his receipt of the tickets. In May 2001, respondent amended his 1994 financial
disclosure form to reflect the same information.
{¶ 3} In February 2001, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging that the conduct of respondent violated the Canons of Judicial
Ethics. Respondent answered, and the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”).
{¶ 4} Based on the testimony received at a hearing on June 26, 2001, and
the stipulations of the parties, the panel found the facts as stated and further found
that at one time respondent had referred a potential client to Banks, but respondent
was not involved in the litigation, if any, that resulted from the referral. The panel
concluded that respondent’s acceptance of the tickets violated Canon 2(C)(5)(h) of
the Code of Judicial Conduct (a judge shall not accept a gift from a person who
has come or is likely to come before the judge) and Canon 4 (a judge shall avoid
the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s actions). It further concluded
that respondent’s failure to include the receipt of the gifts on his original financial
statements violated Canon 2(D)(3)(b) (full-time judges shall file complete and
timely financial disclosure statements). In mitigation the panel received letters
from over fifty judges, attorneys, and members of the community attesting to the
good character of respondent, and noted that respondent submitted payment for the
tickets to Banks as soon as he discovered his error. The panel recommended that
the respondent receive a public reprimand.
{¶ 5} The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the panel. We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs
are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
2
January Term, 2002
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
J. Gerald Ingram; Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter and Geoffrey Stern, for
respondent.
__________________
3