By Anne Yeager | December 31, 2019

The Ohio Supreme Court adopted several mediation rule changes in 2019 that take effect on January 1, including requiring courts to incorporate the state’s Uniform Mediation Act, identify the cases eligible for mediation, and address confidentiality.

Currently, 77 percent of common pleas courts refer cases to mediation, and 63 percent of courts do so statewide.

Of the courts that use mediation, 84 percent have a local rule regarding mediation.

The current rule reads that a court “shall consider, and may adopt, a local rule providing for mediation.” Under the adopted rules, courts would continue to have discretion in whether to refer cases to mediation, but those courts that elect to refer cases to mediation would be required to have a local rule.

Under adopted Rules 16-16.36 of the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio, provisions will be updated or added to include:

• Responsibilities of mediators
• Responsibilities of courts
• Pre-referral education and training
• Complaint process
• Core values for mediation

By Anne Yeager | December 26, 2019

A documentary that traces the work of Ohio drug courts will make its television debut on, Dec. 26 at 9:00 p.m. on WOUB-TV.

“Second Chances: One Year in Ohio’s Drug Courts” shows the complicated struggle of drug addiction and how courts play a crucial role in the recovery attempts of users, their families and communities.

The one-hour film was produced and edited by Anne Fife of Ohio Government Telecommunications under contract to the Ohio Supreme Court’s Office of Public Information.

For television listings, click here.

Elizabeth Miceli joins Ice Miller as a Municipal Finance Group attorney. She serves as bond counsel, bank/purchaser’s counsel and underwriter’s counsel on various types of tax-exempt financing transactions for 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, including charter schools, independent schools, hospitals and colleges and universities.

In addition to her public finance experience, Elizabeth has an extensive background in real estate related financing transactions. She has served as lender’s counsel and borrower’s counsel for multi-million dollar real estate projects; handled a variety of financing vehicles for affordable housing developers; and negotiated, analyzed and drafted a wide variety of contracts, leases and purchase and sale agreements for businesses.

“Elizabeth is adept at leveraging her real estate financing experience for the public finance sector,” said Steve Humke, chief managing partner of Ice Miller. “Her background provides an extremely advantageous perspective to the team and our clients.”

Elizabeth obtained her juris doctor, magna cum laude, from Notre Dame Law School and her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, summa cum laude, from The Ohio State University.

###

About Ice Miller LLP

Ice Miller LLP is a full service law firm dedicated to helping our clients stay ahead of a changing world. With over 340 legal professionals in seven offices, we advise clients on all aspects of complex legal issues across more than 20 practice areas. Our clients include emerging growth companies, FORTUNE 500 corporations, municipal entities and nonprofits. Learn more about Ice Miller and our client commitments.

This press release is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

It’s been a busy 12 months at the Ohio Supreme Court. New justices stepped onto the bench, and former justices reminisced. More legal help became available to those in need. And public education about the courts was at the heart of numerous activities.

Compiled by Kathleen Maloney | December 19, 2019

Also in 2019: A documentary produced by the Supreme Court gave a revealing look inside the state’s drug courts, and an interactive, public resource brimming with statewide court data debuted. As the year comes to a close, here’s an assortment of the many highlights.

Court Welcomes New Justices, Key Hires

Two new justices, elected in November 2018, joined the Ohio Supreme Court in January of this year. Justice Michael P. Donnelly, the 160th justice on the Supreme Court, served the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court for 14 years. Justice Donnelly said he wanted to work on broader issues in the justice system and is enjoying the move from trial court to the state’s premier bench. (Justice Donnelly Relishing Jump from Trial Court to Supreme Court)

Justice Melody J. Stewart’s election marked a Supreme Court milestone: She is the first African-American woman elected to the state’s highest court and only the second to serve on the high bench. Justice Stewart, Ohio’s 161st justice, served on the Eighth District Court of Appeals from 2006 to 2018. The 12th woman to sit on the Court, her election also kept the Court’s female majority from the previous term. With more than 30 years of combined administrative, legal, and academic experience, Justice Stewart, who describes herself as a lifelong student, said she approaches each case with curiosity. (Justice Stewart Starts Tenure as First African-American Woman Elected to Supreme Court)

In April, retired U.S. Army Colonel Jeffrey C. Hagler was named the Court’s administrative director, a position required by the Ohio Constitution. Hagler, who began the job in July, originally hails from Ohio’s own Greene County. He most recently served as a judge with the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, which conducts appellate reviews of Army court-martial convictions. He also was the primary legal adviser to the commander of the 18th Airborne Corps and to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the most populous military installation in the United States. He deployed from 2015 to 2016 as the primary legal adviser for Operation Inherent Resolve, the 70-nation counter-ISIS campaign in Iraq, Syria, and Kuwait. (Leadership and Legal Lineage: Court Administrative Director’s Perfect Pairing)

The Court filled another critical staff position in July – the reporter of decisions. The justices chose Douglas M. Nelson, who had worked as an assistant reporter with the Court since 2015, to lead the Office of the Reporter. The office edits, reports, and oversees the print publication of the Supreme Court’s opinions, rulings on motions, miscellaneous orders, and rule amendments. The Reporter’s Office also publishes Supreme Court opinions, along with decisions from the state’s appellate courts and Ohio Court of Claims, on the Court’s website. In addition, Nelson manages the process for reporting the justices’ votes in individual cases. (Supreme Court Hires Reporter of Decisions)

Film Follows Individuals through Ohio Drug Courts

While a federal court in Cleveland considered lawsuits from across the country about the lives lost in the opioid crisis, a one-hour, Court-produced documentary released in May presented a gripping, up-close view of 19 Ohioans struggling with drug addiction. As they participate in specialized programs established by courts in Medina, Marion, and Hocking counties, the individuals are seen combatting their substance use and other obstacles, and celebrating their successes.

The film – “Second Chances: One Year in Ohio’s Drug Courts” – reflects the crucial role courts are playing in the complicated recovery process for drug users, their families, and their communities.

“Most Americans are familiar with the tragic data generated by our nation’s drug epidemic. But this film takes a very deep look into the human side of drug use, by the users and from the bench,” Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor said.

Free, public screenings took place in August in Marion County and in Medina County. A screening in southeast Ohio is expected in early 2020.

Supreme Court Decisions Address Searches, Secret Ballots, Forgery, and More

The Court’s main role is to review and rule on important legal issues in the state. Here’s a roundup of several of its significant case opinions from this year:

Search of Man Walking Near Where Gunshots Heard Was Constitutional

Court Must Reconsider Guilty Plea Withdrawal by Immigrant Facing Deportation

Electric Grid Modernization Charge Improperly Imposed

Law Limits Time to File Breach-of-Contract Lawsuits for Faulty Construction

Public Bodies Cannot Use Secret Ballots to Take Official Action

Judge Cannot Impose Community Controls to be Served After Prison Sentence

Grocer Not Responsible for Motorized Cart Collision that Injured Shopper

Court Upholds Statute Eliminating Residency Quotas in Cleveland’s Public Construction Contracts

Cincinnati Must Pay Newspaper’s Legal Bill for Withholding Arrest Videos

Double Jeopardy Protections Do Not Bar Prosecuting Man Who Changed Story about Son’s Death

Township Cannot Be Sued based on Hiring and Supervision of Officer Who Injured Motorist

Banks Entitled to Restitution for Forged Checks

Dog's History of Biting Can Be Used to Convict Owner of Crime

New Tools for Teachers Delivered, Educational Events Held

As part of its commitment to fostering the public’s understanding of the state justice system, the Court launched a multi-faceted course for high school students this year called “Under Advisement: Ohio Supreme Court Cases on Demand.” The curriculum, designed for three or four class days, follows real and relatable cases through Ohio’s courts. State courts nationwide handle nearly all – 96 percent – of U.S. court proceedings.

Tailored to the state’s high-school learning standards, the detailed and visually compelling materials include:

• each case’s background
• key moments in the trial and appellate courts
• arguments made in each side’s briefs to the Court
• video of oral argument before the Court
• article summarizing the Court’s decision in each case.

A special teacher packet includes a lesson plan with a timeline, discussion topics, and homework, as well as an annotated guide to the oral argument video. Teachers shared their professional insights about the course in “Out of the Courtroom, Into the Classroom.” “Under Advisement” is the work of the Court’s Civic Education Section and the Office of Public Information.

In other 2019 outreach efforts, the civic education staff unveiled a video titled “How Does Ohio's Court System Work?” The lively, entertaining take on the judicial branch explains the differences between the various types of courts in the state and importance of the justice system and the rule of law.

Also this year, approximately 1,000 high school students had the opportunity to see the Court in action in their counties. The Court held oral arguments in Ashtabula County in April and Williams County in October. At other public, educational events, the Court welcomed the CEO of the Center of Science and Industry and more than 100 students in February to honor Black History Month and an Ohio State University professor in October for a Forum on the Law about an 18th century Italian philosopher who influenced the U.S. justice system.

Former Justices Go On the Record in Video Series

“Reflections from the Bench,” a collection of in-depth interviews with former Ohio Supreme Court justices, continued this year with four more episodes. Justice Patrick F. Fischer, who had the inspiration for the program and hosts it, spoke with former Justices Yvette McGee Brown, Herb Brown, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, and Andy Douglas.

Public, Online Tracking Tool Crunches Data about Courts

The Court debuted an interactive, real-time dashboard in February for researching the state’s case statistics. The data – submitted at regular intervals by Ohio’s trial courts (common pleas general, domestic relations, probate, and juvenile courts, as well as county and municipal courts) – can be broken down by several criteria, such as year, county, judge, and case type.

The dashboard was created to assist the public, media, and courts in accessing and using case statistics. It’s intended as a resource to increase court transparency and accessibility for the media and the public and to provide local courts with a new way to monitor and improve case management processes. The dashboard homepage offers instructional videos.

Supreme Court and Partners Continue Focus on Broadening Access to Justice

The public now can turn to a powerful, plain-language website for free information about common legal problems. Ohio Legal Help, which went live in August, takes visitors through a simple, step-by-step guide that directs them to helpful and appropriate resources and identifies next steps. The site, developed by the Ohio Access to Justice Foundation (formerly the Ohio Legal Assistance Foundation) and several partners, also offers legal forms, attorney referrals, and court details. The Ohio Supreme Court sponsors the foundation.

“The Supreme Court’s Task Force on Access to Justice recommended that Ohio develop a statewide website that provides free and accurate legal information and standardized forms,” Chief Justice O’Connor said. “Ohio Legal Help is that website and will increase access to justice for all Ohioans.”

As data indicates that a greater number of Ohio attorneys are giving free legal assistance to low-income individuals and donating more of their time to do so, attorneys across the state talked about the people they help pro bono in “Giving Back.” These attorneys help to balance the scales by tackling basic, yet essential, needs both during tragedies, such as the May tornadoes in Dayton, and other life crises. Also expanding access to justice this year is the Ohio Justice Bus, spearheaded by the foundation, which travels the state delivering pro bono legal guidance directly to people in underserved areas.

Honoring Ohio and U.S. History, with Legal Twists

The state and the country began a yearlong celebration this summer of the 100th anniversary of women securing the right to vote through the U.S. Constitution’s 19th Amendment. In “A More Perfect Union,” women on the Ohio bench, including the Court’s four female justices, shared their personal stories about the first time they cast a ballot, why they vote, and what it was like to win an election.

Also recognized nationally and statewide was that small step Ohio astronaut Neil Armstrong took 50 years ago into the vast universe. “How Neil Armstrong Leaned on Law after Historic Moonwalk” looks at Armstrong’s legal battles over the years to preserve the integrity of his image, quotes, and name.

In another centennial celebration, state officials rededicated the Hamilton County Courthouse in Cincinnati. The storied history of the site’s fifth courthouse and highlights from the October event, which was attended by two Supreme Court justices, are featured in “Hamilton County Courthouse 100 Years Old and Counting.”

Task Forces Release Reports

Two task forces convened by Chief Justice O’Connor issued reports this year.

The 25-page July report from the Task Force to Examine the Ohio Bail System included nine recommendations to the Supreme Court. The task force examined the current criminal rule on bail, compared Ohio’s bail and pretrial systems with those in other states, and analyzed state and federal litigation regarding cash bail.

In September, the Task Force on the Ohio Disciplinary System published a 117-page final report. Charged with examining the state’s system for disciplining judges and attorneys, the task force compiled recommendations for the Court aimed at strengthening public trust and confidence in the disciplinary system.

CREDITS:

Design: Ely Margolis

Web: Erika Lemke

Video Stories/Editing: Anne Fife, Csaba Sukosd, Anne Yeager

She successfully challenged a professional reprimand and in the process helped redefine free speech rights for lawyers and advocacy groups.

Edna Smith Primus in 2009. Barely a year after graduating from law school, she was professionally reprimanded for offering to represent a woman who had been involuntarily sterilized by a doctor.

Credit...via South Carolina Access to Justice

Edna Smith Primus had graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law — the first black woman to do so, in 1972 — when barely one year later she was assigned a case that could have jeopardized her career.

She had been working at the time for the South Carolina Council on Human Rights as a volunteer lawyer when it dispatched her to Aiken, S.C., where an obstetrician had refused to deliver babies to women on welfare with two or more children unless they agreed to be sterilized.

The doctor’s refusal came amid a national public outcry over reports in The New York Times and elsewhere in the early 1970s that poor women, most of them black, were being involuntarily sterilized in the South.

Ms. Primus, who died on Nov. 29 at 75, was sent to Aiken to talk to mothers involved in the controversy there, some of whom had consented to sterilization. She told one woman who had undergone the procedure that the American Civil Liberties Union, for which Ms. Primus also volunteered at its South Carolina office, would represent the woman free of charge if she filed a lawsuit against the doctor.

Instead, Ms. Primus became a target of legal action herself.

The doctor not only dissuaded the woman from suing but also complained to the state bar association that Ms. Primus had violated professional ethics by directly soliciting potential clients for personal financial gain, although she was not being compensated for her work. She was cited by both the bar association and the South Carolina Supreme Court for what amounted to ambulance-chasing — soliciting law clients for private gain.

The A.C.L.U., in turn, challenged those public reprimands, taking Ms. Primus’s case, under her name, all the way to the United States Supreme Court. It won. In a decision handed down in 1978, the court overturned the legal foundation for the reprimand, affirming the First Amendment right of advocacy groups to advance their political agendas through litigation.

The sterilization dispute erupted in the early 1970s after a 20-year-old white woman on welfare publicly complained that Dr. Clovis H. Pierce had refused to deliver her fifth child unless she agreed either to have her fallopian tubes cut and tied or to pay a $100 down payment on his $250 fee.

Dr. Pierce — the only obstetrician in Aiken County who would accept patients on welfare — made sterilization a condition of her continuing to receive welfare benefits through Medicaid. The woman had started receiving public assistance after her husband was sentenced to prison for grand larceny.

Ms. Primus’s soliciting the woman was brought to the attention of the state Supreme Court’s Board of Grievances and Discipline (now the Office of Disciplinary Counsel), which accused her of violating an ethics provision intended to protect unsophisticated plaintiffs from high-pressure sales pitches by lawyers who would benefit if their clients eventually sued and won money damages.

The board’s censure was upgraded to a public reprimand by the state Supreme Court. It rejected Ms. Primus’s argument that her motivation for soliciting a lawsuit — to advance a civil liberties political agenda — was protected by the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and free association.

But the United States Supreme Court disagreed with that lower court decision. It ruled, 7 to 1, that the civil liberties union was a “bona fide, nonprofit organization that pursues litigation as a vehicle for effective political expression and association, as well as a means of communicating useful information to the public.”

The ruling, written by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., concluded that efforts to reach out to the potential client “were undertaken to express personal political beliefs and to advance the civil liberties objectives of the A.C.L.U. rather than to derive financial gain.”

The case has since been taught in law school professional responsibility courses, said Robert Wilcox, the dean of the University of South Carolina School of Law in Columbia. Speaking of Ms. Primus, he said in an email:

“I think her legacy was her steady commitment to helping people who had no other voice to advocate for them. As a very young lawyer, she had made clear that she had the courage to fight for clients and for change, even when it might come at a cost to her career.”

Ms. Primus’s successful challenge of her reprimand affirmed the First Amendment right of advocacy groups to advance their political agendas through litigation.Credit...via Primus family

Edna Smith was born on June 27, 1944, in Yemassee, S.C., a tiny town in the state’s Lowcountry, the daughter of sharecroppers. She earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of South Carolina in 1966 before enrolling in its law school.

She retired in 2006 from Palmetto Legal Services in Columbia, S.C., where she had been managing attorney.

Her marriage to Marcellous Alphonzo Primus ended in divorce.

Ms. Primus died at her home in Columbia, her daughter, LaCelle Primus, said. In addition to her, she is survived by three grandchildren. Her niece Tina Herbert is a lawyer, and a grandniece is graduating from the University of South Carolina School of Law on Dec. 14.

Ms. Primus once recalled that as a young, newly minted lawyer she had not been prepared to be thrust into a public controversy.

“We were scarce then, black women lawyers,” Ms. Primus told the Columbia newspaper The State in 1989. “A public reprimand splashed all over the papers, that was totally demoralizing.”

But she expressed no regrets about getting involved on behalf of women who were being involuntarily sterilized. “I really felt they were being victimized,” she told the newspaper. “I thought it was important for people with little resources to be informed of their rights.”

Marietta Williams, the woman whom Ms. Primus approached as a potential client, was informed of her right to sue only after the sterilization. Dr. Pierce had persuaded her to sign a release freeing him of liability.

“I wouldn’t marry again,” Ms. Williams told The Times in 1973. “Who would want me, knowing I cannot have any children?”

The Times reported that 18 of the 34 Medicaid-funded deliveries in Aiken County Hospital in 1972 included sterilization. Of those, 16 were performed on black women, all by Dr. Pierce, a former Army doctor.

“People with three children — three already or two with one on the way who are on Medicaid — are required to voluntarily submit to sterilization,” Dr. Pierce told The Aiken Standard in 1973. “In a sense, it isn’t really voluntary, because no other obstetrician will see a Medicaid patient.”

He added: “I feel that if I’m paying for them as a taxpayer, I want to put an end to their reproduction. If I control my own family size so that I can provide for them, then I don’t want to have to pay for others.”

Dr. Pierce was charged with malpractice but acquitted. He was later sued in federal court by two women, one who had undergone sterilization at his insistence; the other said he had prematurely discharged her from a hospital, a day after she gave birth to her third child, because she had refused to undergo a tubal ligation, or sterilization. A jury awarded the first woman $5 in damages, finding that Dr. Pierce had violated her rights, but it awarded nothing to the second. The verdict against Dr. Pierce was later reversed by a federal appeals court.

Information about Dr. Pierce’s practice remains on health care websites in South Carolina, but calls to his listed office phone numbers went unanswered.

Article by: Sam Roberts, an obituaries reporter, was previously The Times’s urban affairs correspondent and is the host of “The New York Times Close Up,” a weekly news and interview program on CUNY-TV.

Ice Miller LLP is pleased to announce the arrival of a new attorney in the Firm’s Columbus office.

Kishala Srivastava is an attorney in Ice Miller’s Litigation Practice. Kishala first joined Ice Miller as a summer associate, where she drafted memoranda and court documents for the Firm’s Litigation and Labor & Employment Groups. She earned her juris doctor from The Ohio State Moritz College of Law. During law school, Kishala was an advisory board member for the Program on Law and Leadership, a co-chair of the diversity and inclusion committee for the Student Bar Association and a member of the Moritz’s Justice for Children Clinic. Kishala also served as editor-in-chief of the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution.

The U.S. Constitution begins with the words, “We the people.” Yet women fought for decade after decade for the right to participate in electing their leaders. The 19th Amendment finally began making its rounds in 1919, through the states toward ultimate ratification. One hundred years later, Ohio judges and justices share what it has meant to them to participate in democracy’s most basic responsibility – voting.

By Kathleen Maloney | November 22, 2019

As another Election Day fades away, it’s a reminder of the privilege in this country to select our public officials at the local, state, and national levels. This right wasn’t always widely extended. White males were the only individuals who could vote for many decades. Since at least 1848, though – when the Women’s Rights Convention was held in Seneca Falls, New York, and participants drafted a declaration of rights – women have fought to have a say in who is elected to represent them.

In June 1919, after several failed attempts, Congress proposed the U.S. Constitution’s 19th Amendment to give women the right to vote. The measure traveled to the states for the required ratification. Ohio ratified the amendment swiftly – on June 16, 1919. About a year later, Tennessee’s approval gave the country the 36 states needed to make the amendment part of the U.S. Constitution. (Even so, it took many more years to push back obstacles to voting for African Americans, Asians, and Native Americans.) On Aug. 26, 1920, the U.S. secretary of state formally certified the 19th Amendment.

As part of the national, yearlong celebration to honor the 100th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote, women who serve in Ohio's judicial branch tell what it was like the first time they cast a ballot, what drove them to participate in the electoral process, and how it felt to be a winning candidate in an election.

The first time you voted, what was the experience like?
JUDGE BECKMAN: I remember being nervous the first time I voted. I was nervous because I did not want to look like a fool not knowing what I was doing. At 18 years old, I did not understand the magnitude of the election process at all.

JUDGE ZAYAS (first Hispanic woman elected to an Ohio appellate court): I remember it feeling overwhelming, and wondering if I was doing it correctly.

JUDGE TORRES-LUGO: I was going to elect the mayor of the city where I lived in Puerto Rico. It was so amazing. I was going to be a decisive factor. It felt so important to me, and it was fun.

JUDGE HUFFMAN: It was the 1980 presidential election, and my recollection is I was scared because of the important responsibility that goes with voting. You need to put thought into who you choose; you don’t just click any button.

JUDGE TRAPP: The minute I turned 18, I was so excited to vote. We had debated the voting age in high school, and it hadn’t been that long since 18-year-olds were allowed to vote. To walk in to vote, it was very gratifying. It was an awesome responsibility because people before us didn’t have that right.

JUDGE COOPERRIDER (first female judge in Perry County): My parents had eight children. It was a busy lifestyle. However, my parents always made the time to vote. They lived through wars, depressions, and other significant events in our country. We would always talk about the importance of voting. Government was my favorite class in high school, and our teacher helped us register to vote.

Among her many firsts, Florence E. Allen was the first woman elected to a judicial office in the United States (the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court), and the first woman elected to a state supreme court (the Ohio Supreme Court, of course). There’s a move afoot to name Cuyahoga County’s new or refurbished justice center after her to honor her notable achievements. She also became the first woman to serve on a federal appeals court.

JUDGE BALLINGER: I can’t remember the first time that I voted, but I do remember talking to my mom about voting when I was in middle school. She told me that she was of one party and my dad was of another party. This helped me to understand that you don’t hate the opposing party, but rather understand that there are different views and beliefs.

Why did you want to vote? How was voting meaningful to you?
JUDGE HUFFMAN: Our father was an attorney and a county prosecutor. He was very invested in politics but also stressed to my brothers and sister and me the importance in participating in the political process. We all passed out literature for candidates from the time we were about 8 years old, and we heard about elections and politics at every meal. Our father and our uncle, who was also a county prosecutor, always impressed on us that voting isn’t just a right, but an important responsibility. If you don’t vote, the consequences are yours, and you have no right to complain.

JUDGE TORRES-LUGO: Although I’ve been in Cleveland for 30 years now, I grew up in Puerto Rico. My father was very politically involved, and he took us as a family – I’m the youngest of five – to campaign events and to vote. My father taught us that the differences between candidates are about more than party, and that whoever you like needs your vote.

JUDGE BECKMAN: At 18, I felt that voting was a civic duty – something that I should do. But it wasn’t meaningful to me at 18. I knew it made the United States different from other places, but I did not understand the magnitude until much later in life.

JUDGE TRAPP: I saw voting as a way for women to have more seats – even some seats – in political power. It didn’t matter which party if they were voting and advocating for equal rights for women.

JUDGE ZAYAS: I grew up with an innate sense of the value of the vote, and I had studied that some people didn’t have the right to vote. I felt a sense of duty, because there are people – women, African Americans – who fought so hard and died for the right to vote. 

Women from Ohio and neighboring states marched through Marion, Ohio, on Oct. 1, 1920, to hear Sen. Warren G. Harding give a campaign speech from the front porch of his home. Harding was the first president elected after women throughout the United States were allowed to vote in national elections. He ran against another Ohioan, former Gov. James M. Cox of Butler County.

Did you encounter any obstacles or pushback as a woman running for office? If so, in what ways?

JUDGE TRAPP: To a certain extent, sure. There were still some organizations I met with when I first ran for judge where a man might say, “Isn’t it cute you’re running for judge, honey.”

JUDGE HUFFMAN: My colleague, Judge Barb Gorman, the first woman on our bench, told me that early in her judicial career a few attorneys would refer to her as “girlie.” Today, I get the occasional remark, usually from a criminal defendant, about my gender, but it’s so rare. I haven’t experienced that as an issue of any significance.

JUDGE TORRES-LUGO: There were areas. A group of voters told me they thought more men were needed on municipal court. They argued that women favored other women, especially in domestic violence cases. I wasn’t intimidated and instead viewed it as an intellectual challenge. But, generally, I don’t feel much distinction in how people view male and female candidates in Cleveland.

JUDGE ZAYAS: I think 10 to 20 years ago, women had a much more difficult time running for office. I know, though, that there are some people who won’t vote for me because I’m a woman, and some who will just because I’m a woman.

Being a person of color was more of a challenge. I have a different name and a New York accent. Yet because people notice I’m different, they paused and listened. I think most folks chose who they felt would better serve them. They ultimately considered me for me.

JUDGE COOPERRIDER: I have seven brothers so I know firsthand what it is like to stick up for yourself and to be an underdog. I also knew my abilities as a person, no matter if I was a male or female.

How did it feel when you won your seat for judge?
JUDGE TORRES-LUGO: Oh my goodness, that was a roller coaster of emotions. I didn’t want to look at the TV. I told my family not to tell me anything about the results until it was close to 100 percent. I was excited, humbled, and honored.

JUDGE BALLINGER: I felt a sense of excitement because I could now move forward to create programs and dockets and procedures that would benefit the people who came before me daily. I believed I could make the court more user-friendly and less intimidating. With municipal court being the people’s court serving almost every citizen in the community, it should not be a place that brings on fear or misunderstanding.

JUDGE TRAPP: It was fantastic. As a trial lawyer, I’d won cases and lost. Similarly, I lost my first judicial race, and won my second. It’s perseverance. And election night is a lot like waiting for a jury verdict. When you win, it’s so joyous.

JUDGE HUFFMAN: It was more than humbling. People place their trust in you. I felt the gravity of the responsibility, and the importance of following the law, continuing to educate myself about the law, and treating people with respect.

JUDGE ZAYAS: I still pinch myself every morning: What I do for a living is serve the people as a judge.

Victoria Woodhull of Homer, Ohio, was the first woman to testify before Congress, arguing for suffrage for women. She was nominated by the Equal Rights Party in 1872 as the first woman to run for U.S. president.

What's the importance of women running for office? What's the importance of women as judges on our courts?
JUDGE BALLINGER: I believe it’s important that women run for office so that we have a more diverse pool of candidates and eventually a more diverse pool of elected officials and community leaders. I don’t believe that women are better leaders than men, but they bring an additional dynamic to the table that benefits all. The diversity strengthens our judiciary and better addresses all of the community.

JUDGE TORRES-LUGO: When you have a child, God rewires you. As a mother, I learned to read people and to step back and find a middle ground. I’ve used these skills as a judge.

JUDGE TRAPP: Women bring a different perspective because of our experiences. We’re a big part of the population, and we bring those perspectives to the table. If women’s voices are heard enough, eventually some of our issues will be heard and addressed.

JUDGE COOPERRIDER: When I ran for judge, I wanted to make a difference in the lives of the people from Perry County, especially the youth. I never made it an issue that I was a woman. I just let them know who I was and what I wanted to do.

JUDGE ZAYAS: It’s great that we’re revisiting this historic moment of women getting the right to vote. It may feel far removed but it’s a great reminder that women put their lives, and everything, on the line for this right. The women had such passion and were fighting for their daughters and nieces. People sacrificed so much.

In 1917, Ohio’s legislature passed a law to allow women in the state to vote for president. But a referendum petition put the law to a vote before the public, which repealed it in November of that year.

Why is it important for people to vote or to vote for judges specifically?
JUDGE TORRES-LUGO: You have to understand that all the restrictions in life come from legislation. The legislature can take your life, your liberty, and your property. All aspects of your life are in other people’s hands. You can take control only by voting. If not, you’re at the mercy of another person who doesn’t know you or your values or philosophy.

JUDGE ZAYAS: Elections are won sometimes on a dismal amount of votes. Before provisional votes were counted, a friend of mine was ahead by only four votes on Election Day. Absolutely, believe me, every vote counts. Even when your candidate loses, your vote still matters. Votes showing support for your candidate, even though they lost, encourages others with your values to come forward and run, too.

JUDGE HUFFMAN: In some other countries, the right to vote is non-existent or compromised. I never take it for granted. None of us should squander the right.

JUDGE COOPERRIDER: People should vote to have a say and to be engaged in their local, state, and national government.

JUDGE TRAPP: If you don’t like what you see, you can change it. It goes back to realizing what people went through in this country to gain the right to vote. It’s precious. When I talk to people in other countries, they are in awe of our government. They can’t understand why we wouldn’t vote when we have the chance. Voting is key to our democracy and to maintaining our democracy.

JUDGE ZAYAS: In election years and in between those years, I talk a lot to people about what judges do, what appellate courts do, and the judicial structure in the state. Once they understand, it’s like a light bulb turns on. And they say, “I’m ready, and I want to vote for all those openings.”

JUDGE BALLINGER: Because judges are elected in Ohio, it is important that voters know they are on the ticket and to vote for the best judicial candidate by researching ahead of time. It is beyond me that voters don’t vote the entire ballot!

CREDITS:

Design: Ely Margolis  |  Web: Erika Lemke

Julie Drellishak | Press Release |November 7, 2019

CLEVELAND, OH - Reminger Co., LPA is proud to share that Barbara Bellin Janovitz, Chair of Reminger Co., LPA’s Estate Planning Practice Group, won her re-election bid for Beachwood City Council this week. With 2,588 votes, Barbara won 25.76% of the ballots cast amongst the five candidates who were vying for one of the four available seats.

A lifelong Beachwood resident, Barbara is a board member of several organizations, including the Montefiore Foundation, Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging, Rose Centers for Aging Well and the Center for Community Solutions. She has served as a member of Beachwood City Council since January 2016.

Barbara has been the chair of Reminger's Estate Planning Group for more than twenty years and has been counseling clients on estate planning and probate and trust administration issue for more than thirty years. Her practice is focused on estate and gift planning, estate tax law and planning, probate dn estate administration, trusts and trust administration, and asset protection planning.

Barbara counsels clients on both simple and complex estate, charitable and retirement planning matters, and has experience dealing with the Internal Revenue Service to resolve estate and gift tax issues. She helps clients analyze, develop and implement appropriate comprehensive estate plans, from basic planning to the use of sophisticated and cutting edge techniques for high net worth clients.

Barbara frequently speaks on estate planning matters to groups of individuals and professional advisors. She also performs community service in a leadership role with a multitude of organizations.

“I am honored that Beachwood voters have voiced their support,” said Janovitz. “I look forward to continuing to serve my community with a renewed focus on strategic planning, maintaining open lines of communication with residents and engaging them to participate in civic matters.”

Barbara can be reached by emailing bjanovitz@reminger.com or by calling

216.430.2178.

A total of 629 successful bar admission applicants will participate in one of two special Court sessions Nov. 12 at the Palace Theatre in Columbus.

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor will administer the oath of office to applicants who were successful on their July 2019 Ohio bar examination and who have satisfied all of the Supreme Court’s requirements for admission. About 73 percent of those who sat for the July exam received a passing score. Eighty-two percent of the first-time test takers passed.

View a complete list of those who passed the July bar exam.

Justice Judith French will give both keynote speeches during the bar admissions ceremonies, which begin at 10:30 a.m. and 2 p.m.

The ceremony will be streamed live on the Supreme Court’s website.

Women for Economic and Leadership Development (WELD) gathers each year to recognize women in the Ohio community that are high-impact leaders.  These women help to inspire others by carrying out WELD’s mission of developing and advancing women’s leadership to strengthen the economic prosperities of the communities they serve. OWBA’s founding members, Joyce Edelman and our past president Claudia Herrington, were honored during the event. Please help us in congratulating these amazing women!