## Facts

- Deborah P. O’Neill, a Franklin County Court of Common Pleas judge, faced disciplinary charges for conduct from 1997–2002.
- Disciplinary Counsel filed an amended complaint alleging six counts of judicial and attorney misconduct.
- After lengthy hearings, the disciplinary panel found misconduct on Counts I, IV, V, and VI, and found no misconduct on Counts II and III; the Board adopted those findings.
- Count I involved coercive criminal-court practices, including threats of bond revocation and bond revocations used to pressure defendants to enter pleas, along with misrepresentations about case handling.
- Count IV involved additional misrepresentations to judges, court personnel, and others concerning official matters.
- Count V involved a pattern of intemperate and unbecoming conduct toward staff, attorneys, litigants, and others connected to court proceedings.
- Count VI involved judicial campaign misconduct, including improper or inaccurate campaign-related statements or practices.
- The panel recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law; the matter proceeded to the Supreme Court of Ohio for final discipline.

## Issues

1. Whether O’Neill committed violations of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility as charged in Counts I, IV, V, and VI.
2. What sanction was necessary to protect the public and the administration of justice, including whether an actual suspension (and what conditions, if any) should apply.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio found that O’Neill committed misconduct under Counts I, IV, V, and VI, and did not sustain Counts II and III.
- The court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law, with one year stayed.
- The stayed year was conditioned on a court-approved mental-health evaluation, cooperation with any recommended treatment, and mentoring/supervision after reinstatement.
- Costs were taxed to O’Neill.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial discipline primarily serves to protect the public and maintain confidence in the judiciary and legal profession, not to punish.
- A judge violates professional and judicial ethics by engaging in dishonesty or misrepresentation and by conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- Using bond revocation threats or bond decisions to coerce guilty pleas is inconsistent with impartial judicial duties and undermines the fairness and integrity of criminal proceedings.
- Persistent intemperate conduct toward court staff, lawyers, and litigants violates duties of patience, courtesy, and courtroom decorum and can warrant substantial discipline.
- Judicial candidates and judges remain bound by campaign-conduct restrictions designed to prevent politicization and preserve public confidence in judicial neutrality.
- In selecting sanctions, courts weigh aggravating and mitigating factors, including patterns of misconduct, harm to litigants and court operations, prior disciplinary history, and prospects for remediation through monitored conditions.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that a sustained pattern of coercive plea-related practices, repeated misrepresentations, intemperate courtroom behavior, and campaign violations warranted an actual suspension, imposing a two-year suspension with one year stayed subject to evaluation, treatment compliance, and mentoring to protect the public and the integrity of the judiciary.


Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Neill, 815 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio 2004)