MAHONING COUNTY Ohio high court rules against judge

One case involved whether the prosecutor's office should represent the judge.
By JEFF ORTEGA
VINDICATOR CORRESPONDENT
COLUMBUS -- The Ohio Supreme Court ruled against a Mahoning County judge in two separate decisions Wednesday.
In the first case, a unanimous high court said the Mahoning County prosecutor, not a private law firm, should represent Probate Judge Timothy P. Maloney in a federal court case.
In the second case, the court unanimously agreed that Judge Maloney can't prevent an attorney from practicing in the probate court.
In the first case, county Prosecutor Paul J. Gains had filed a complaint in the high court to block Judge Maloney from using outside counsel, which the prosecutor had alleged was hired improperly.
About the case
The case centers on a complaint filed against Judge Maloney by disbarred attorney Richard Goldberg, who had been serving a 21-month sentence in the county jail for contempt of court. The sentence was imposed by Judge Maloney.
In December, Judge Maloney appointed a Cincinnati law firm to represent him in the federal matter, alleging that the prosecutor had a conflict of interest because of unrelated, ongoing legal matters involving the county budget.
But the high court rejected the judge's claims.
"Judge Maloney has introduced no credible evidence in this case supporting his assertion that a conflict of interest existed when he appointed outside counsel to represent him in the habeas corpus case," the Supreme Court said in an unsigned opinion.
Gains' reaction
After learning of the high court's decision, Gains said he thought the law was clearly on his side.
"The Supreme Court looked at this issue and decided that there is nothing, nothing at all, that precludes my office from zealously representing the probate court in this matter," Gains said.
He said his office already has started representing Judge Maloney in the Goldberg case by filing several legal motions.
The larger question, Gains said, is finding out who will be on the hook for paying the Cincinnati law firm for the work it did to this point. He was unsure how much the company has billed the county so far.
Judge Maloney was attending to a family matter Wednesday and was unavailable to comment.
Second case
In the second case, the high court reversed an appeals court in ordering Judge Maloney to not prevent a Youngstown-area lawyer from practicing in the county probate court.
Atty. Marshall D. Buck had alleged that Judge Maloney doesn't have legal authority to ban lawyers from probate court.
An appeals court sided with the judge and the matter went to the high court, which sided with Buck.
In an unsigned opinion, the high court said that usually a reversal of an appeals court dismissal based on failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted requires sending the case back to the appeals court for further proceedings.
But, the high court said it was moved to act because "we find that the pertinent evidence is uncontroverted and that based on that evidence, it is clear that Buck is entitled to the requested extraordinary relief."
Court documents say Buck represented a family in a wrongful-death claim in 1996. A settlement was reached on behalf of Buck's client.
What reports say
News reports say Judge Maloney wrote in a judgment entry that Buck did not have the settlement approved in probate court as required by state law.
The entry says that Atty. JeAnne Longenhagen, who also worked on the matter, did not report the settlement to the probate court.
Later, Judge Maloney wrote a judgment entry saying there were "serious improprieties" in the administration of the estates involved in the wrongful-death settlement, news reports say.
Maloney barred both Buck and Longenhagen from further practicing in his court until the matters are cleared up.
The request to the court of appeals to reverse Maloney's decision was filed only on Buck's behalf.
XCONTRIBUTOR: Bob Jackson, Vindicator courthouse reporter