Ohio Jud.Cond.R. 2.15

History

Comment Taking action to address known misconduct is a judge’s obligation. Divisions (A) and (B) impose an obligation on the judge to report to the appropriate disciplinary authority the known misconduct of another judge or a lawyer that raises a question regarding the honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness of that judge or lawyer. Ignoring or denying known misconduct among one’s judicial colleagues or members of the legal profession undermines a judge’s responsibility to participate in efforts to ensure public respect for the justice system. This rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that an independent judiciary must vigorously endeavor to prevent. Comparison to Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.15 corresponds to Ohio Canon 3(D)(1) and (2), although the latter imposes a strict reporting requirement once a judge has knowledge of a violation by a lawyer or judge. Rule 2.15 follows the standard created in Rule 8.3 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct for reporting attorney misconduct: reporting is required when the conduct raises a question about the honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness of a lawyer or judge. Comparison to ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 2.15(A) and (B) are altered to require a judge to report misconduct when the judge possesses knowledge that raises a “question” about a lawyer or judge’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. Model Rule 2.15(A) and (B) imposes a reporting requirement when the judge possesses knowledge that raises a “substantial question.” With these changes, Rules 2.15(A) and (B) conform to the reporting requirement in Rule 8.3 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. Model Rules 2.15(C) and (D), which are stricken from Rule 2.15, address a judge’s responsibility when the judge receives information indicating a disciplinary violation may have occurred but does not possess actual knowledge regarding the alleged violation.