Ohio Jud.Cond.R. 3.5

History

Comment [1] In the course of performing judicial duties, a judge may acquire information of commercial or other value that is unavailable to the public. The judge must not reveal or use such information for personal gain or for any purpose unrelated to his or her judicial duties. [1A] The premature disclosure of confidential information regarding the outcome of pending cases gives the appearance of partiality and fosters obvious public distrust of the judiciary and legal profession. Among other things, premature disclosure creates the potential for the release of inaccurate information and allows attorneys, litigants, and others with access to the information to use it for personal gain before it becomes public knowledge. [2] This rule is not intended, however, to affect a judge’s ability to act on information as necessary to protect the health or safety of the judge or a member of a judge’s family, court personnel, or other judicial officers if consistent with other provisions of this code. [3] Nothing in this rule shall prohibit the disclosure of any of the following: (1) a decision that has been announced on the record or in open court, but that has not been journalized in a written opinion, entry, or other document; (2) information regarding the probable or actual decision in a pending case or legal proceeding to a judge or employee of the court in which the matter is pending; (3) other information that is a matter of public record or that may be disclosed pursuant to law. [4] The imposition of discipline upon a judge for violation of this rule shall not preclude prosecution for a violation of any applicable provision of the Revised Code, including, but not limited to, R.C. 102.03(B). Comparison to Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Other than Ohio Canon 3(B)(11), addressing the disclosure of information regarding pending matters before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the courts of appeals, and a panel of judges in the common pleas courts, there is no Ohio rule comparable to Rule 3.5. Comments [1A], [3], and [4] are taken from Ohio Canon 3(B)(11). Comparison to ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 3.5 is modified to incorporate the standard of “knowingly” contained in Ohio Canon 3(B)(11), instead of the “intentionally” standard contained in Model Rule 3.5. Comments [1A], [3], and [4] were added from Ohio Canon 3(B)(11).