In re Disqualification of Celebrezze, 2003 Ohio 7352 (OH 9/22/2003)

• Decision Date: 22 September 2003
• Docket Number: Case No. 03-AP-079.
• Parties: In re Disqualification of Celebrezze. Carlson-Miller, v. Miller.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 1

2003 Ohio 7352

101 Ohio St.3d 1224

In re Disqualification of Celebrezze.

Carlson-Miller, v. Miller.

Case No. 03-AP-079.

In the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided September 22, 2003.

ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Division of Domestic Relations, case No. D291165.

MOYER, C.J.

{¶1} This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Jacob Kronenberg, counsel for defendant, seeking the disqualification of Judge James Celebrezze from further proceedings in the above-captioned case.

{¶2} This is the fourteenth in a series of affidavits filed since 1992 by Jacob or Janet Kronenberg seeking the disqualification of Judge James P. Celebrezze from pending domestic relations matters. In 1996, I disqualified Judge Celebrezze from all pending and future cases in which the Kronenbergs were or are counsel of record. At that time, I considered the judge's disqualification to be warranted to avoid the appearance of impropriety based on the fact that Mr. Kronenberg had been involved in grievance proceedings against Judge Celebrezze in 1992 and because Ms. Kronenberg had been an opponent of Judge Celebrezze in the 1996 primary election. In re Disqualification of Celebrezze (Apr. 26, 1996), No. 96-AP-050. In the entry, affiants and litigants were cautioned against misusing the order, and I indicated that the order would be subject to review and modification where necessary to prevent its abuse.

{¶3} The 1996 order has remained in effect, without significant modification, and has formed the basis for Judge Celebrezze's voluntary recusal from cases or subsequent disqualification. See, e.g., In re Disqualification of Celebrezze (Mar. 8, 2002), No. 02-AP-024. In one instance, I declined affiant's request to disqualify Judge Celebrezze from the case of Chokel v. Chokel based on the fact that, prior to the affiant's involvement in the case, Judge Celebrezze had participated in lengthy proceedings in a domestic relations matter that had been characterized by the court of appeals as "complex." In re Disqualification of Celebrezze (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 1228, 763 N.E.2d 598.

{¶4} The pending affidavit of disqualification involves a domestic relations case filed in February 2003. The defendant previously was represented by two different attorneys, both of whom withdrew from representation voluntarily or because of a conflict of interest. The defendant avers that, following the withdrawal of his second attorney, he consulted three individuals, all of whom referred the defendant to affiant. After being retained in this matter, affiant entered his initial appearance in August, requested Judge Celebrezze's recusal pursuant to the 1996 and subsequent orders, and eventually filed this affidavit.

{¶5} Having reviewed the pending matter and considered the original bases for Judge Celebrezze's disqualification, I have concluded that it is appropriate to terminate the applicability of the 1996 and subsequent orders of disqualification. Given the nature and duration of the prior disqualification orders, I...