Judge Kim Richard Hoover of Stow Municipal Court acted with bias and disrespect toward people of a lower socioeconomic status, the Buckeye State justices said in their Tuesday opinion removing him from the bench and suspending his law license for 18 months, with the final six months stayed on the condition he engages in no further misconduct.
According to the opinion, Judge Hoover committed 64 violations of Ohio's Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules of Professional Conduct across 16 cases, some violating the Ohio Constitution and others undermining the public's faith in the judiciary.
Specifically, Judge Hoover put two municipal defendants in jail for a failure to pay fines and court costs even though the Ohio Constitution does not allow jailing people over court costs. By failing to separate the fines and the costs, Judge Hoover violated the law, the justices said.
Additionally, the opinion stated his conduct during the proceedings with the two people he jailed and the 14 others he coerced into paying their fines and costs under threat of jail was "demeaning and paternalistic," including one case in which he called an adult Black woman "child" at the beginning of a hearing.
Judge Hoover also involved the families of the defendants in some of the 16 cases at issue, the opinion states, including telling one man who had said it would take him about a month to pay off his fees and costs to "start calling mom and dad and grandma and ask them for birthday presents early" so he could avoid going to jail.
"In addition to harming the defendants, Hoover purposely involved the families of the defendants — innocent people — to extort money from them," the opinion stated. "The families of the defendants were not the wrongdoers, and Hoover's endeavor to squeeze money from them so that they might keep their loved ones out of jail was reprehensible."
For one of the two men Judge Hoover jailed for not paying his costs and fines, Douglas Dawson, the justices noted that the judge failed to show remorse during his disciplinary proceedings.
Dawson had been arrested for driving with a suspended license, a non-jailable offense, and legally he could not be jailed over court costs. But the opinion stated Judge Hoover told disciplinary counsel, "If you saw Dawson's record, you'd think any time he spent in jail was a good thing for the world," which the justices said showed a lack of concern about his behavior. Judge Hoover also had told Dawson that he was "screwing" with the court by failing to pay his fines and costs quickly, which the justices said further showed a clear disdain for those of a lower socioeconomic status.
"A defendant's failure to pay fines in a timely manner, without the court determining the reason for such a failure, is insufficient to justify incarceration and certainly cannot be deemed a purposeful act of 'screwing' with the court," the opinion stated. "Hoover's explicit disregard for the law and the decorum and respect owed to the bench by using that type of demeaning commentary was prejudicial to the administration of justice, and it weakens the public's perception of a fair and independent judiciary."
Disciplinary counsel had argued for two full years of suspension for Judge Hoover along with immediate suspension from his judicial office without pay. Judge Hoover had argued that a single year of suspension from practicing law with six months stayed was sufficient. The justices came down closer to disciplinary counsel's suggested sanction at 18 months' suspension with the last six months stayed and suspension from the bench without pay.
Joseph Caligiuri of Ohio's Office of Disciplinary Counsel praised the justices' decision in a Wednesday statement to Law360.
"The Office of Disciplinary Counsel appreciates the court's thorough decision as it reinforces that all people — regardless of their socioeconomic status — are entitled to due process and equal treatment under the law, and that no judge is above the law," Caligiuri said.
Counsel for Judge Hoover did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
Ohio's Office of Disciplinary Counsel is represented by its own Joseph M. Caligiuri and Kelli C. Schmidt.
Judge Hoover is represented by George Jonson and Lisa Zaring of Montgomery Jonson LLP.
The case is Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoover, case number 2024-Ohio-4608, in the Supreme Court of Ohio.
--Editing by Robert Rudinger.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
