On Tuesday, September 24, 2024, the Akron Beacon Journal reported that the Ohio Supreme Court has ordered the immediate removal of Stow Municipal Judge Kim Hoover from his position. The court’s decision also includes an 18-month suspension from practicing law, with six months of that suspension stayed. This ruling stems from serious allegations regarding Hoover’s methods of collecting court fines and fees.
The Ohio Supreme Court’s action follows a recommendation from the state’s Board of Professional Conduct, which had previously advised that Hoover be barred from practicing law and suspended from his judgeship without pay for a period of two years. This recommendation was the result of an investigation initiated by complaints that began in December 2021. These complaints alleged that Hoover employed illegal and coercive tactics to recover court-ordered fees from defendants.
In May 2023, Hoover appealed the recommendation, and oral arguments were presented before the Ohio Supreme Court. He remained in his position during the appeal process. Had he been removed before the end of his term in 2025, he would have been ineligible to run for re-election due to having turned 70 this year.
The court’s ruling, which included opinions from Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, and Joseph T. Deters, found Hoover guilty of abusing his judicial authority. Justice R. Patrick DeWine concurred with the judgment, while Justice Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case.
According to the court’s findings, Hoover unjustly incarcerated two defendants—one for four days and another for seven days—while coercing 14 others into paying fines and costs under the threat of imprisonment. The court ruled that these actions violated Ohio law, which prohibits such coercive measures for nonpayment of court-related financial obligations.
The court’s opinion highlighted that Hoover’s aggressive approach to collecting fines reflected a bias against individuals of lower socioeconomic status. The justices noted that Hoover’s practices suggested a troubling inclination toward a “debtors’ prison” mentality, where defendants were unlawfully threatened with incarceration for failure to pay fines without due process. Additionally, he failed to inform defendants of their right to legal counsel, further undermining their rights.
In a statement regarding the ruling, Joseph Caligiuri, disciplinary counsel, expressed satisfaction with the outcome, emphasizing the importance of due process and equal treatment under the law for all individuals, regardless of their financial status. He underscored that no judge is above the law.
Rick Klinger, the court administrator for Stow Municipal Court, confirmed that the Ohio Supreme Court will appoint someone to fill Hoover’s unexpired term. He noted that in the short term, Hoover’s caseload will be managed by Judge Lisa Coates and the court’s staff of magistrates. The position is set for election next year.
Despite the serious nature of the violations leading to his removal, the ruling acknowledged Hoover’s good character. The disciplinary board found that he did not have a prior disciplinary record and cooperated fully with the investigation. The board recognized his contributions to the Stow Municipal Court and the community over nearly four decades of service as both a lawyer and a judge. However, the board concluded that good intentions do not excuse his failures to adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The court also specified additional penalties for Hoover. He has been suspended without pay for the duration of his disciplinary period and is required to complete one credit hour of continuing legal education for every month of suspension. Furthermore, he cannot be reinstated to practice law in Ohio until he meets certain requirements set forth by the Supreme Court. Additionally, Hoover is ordered to pay $10,025 in court costs within 90 days of the decision.
It remains uncertain whether Hoover will be barred from serving as an assigned or visiting judge in the future. According to the 2023 Guidelines for Assignment of Judges, a sitting or retired judge is ineligible for assignment if they have been removed or suspended without reinstatement from any Ohio court while a complaint is pending against them.
Source: Akron Beacon Journal
