On Friday, March 20, 2026, the Director of the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct filed a formal complaint against Colleen Tonges O’Donnell, a candidate for the Supreme Court of Ohio, alleging violations of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct.
The complaint, initiated by Relator Gary Fox, was filed with the Ohio Court of Appeals Judges Association and is identified as Case No. 2026-006.
The complaint alleges that O’Donnell presented herself or allowed herself to be presented as a sitting judge, creating a false impression of incumbency, which violates Canon 4 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. It also asserts that O’Donnell failed to correct third-party organizations and media outlets that referred to her as “judge” without qualification, constituting a “reckless disregard for the truth” under Jud. Cond. R 4.3(A).
Specifically, the complaint states that on or about January 14, 2026, O’Donnell posted, published, broadcast, transmitted, circulated, and/or distributed a judicial campaign communication through Facebook linking to a third-party endorsement from Ohio Value Voters, which repeatedly referred to O’Donnell as “judge” despite her not holding such an office. By including a link to the endorsement in her Facebook post, O’Donnell allegedly adopted it as a campaign contribution.
Rule 4.3(A) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct states that during any campaign for nomination or election to judicial office, a judicial candidate shall not knowingly or with reckless disregard post, publish, broadcast, transmit, circulate, or distribute false information concerning the judicial candidate or an opponent. Posting, publishing, broadcasting, transmitting, circulating, and/or distributing a judicial campaign communication through Facebook knowing that it contained false information or with reckless disregard is a violation of Jud. Cond. R. 4.3(A).
The complaint further alleges that O’Donnell misused the title of “Judge” without certain qualifying language through her adoption and publication of the communication on Facebook. The Panel determined that probable cause exists that the endorsement violates Jud. Cond. Rule 4.3(D) either by the knowing use or use with reckless disregard of the term “judge” to refer to O’Donnell without the qualifying language required by Jud. Cond. Rule 4.3(D)(1) and (2).
Rule 4.3(D)(1) and (2) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judicial candidate shall not use the term “judge” when the judicial candidate is not a judge unless that term appears after or below the name of the judicial candidate and is accompanied by either the words “elect” or “vote” in prominent lettering before the judicial candidate’s name, or the word “for” in prominent lettering between the name of the judicial candidate and the term “judge”.
The Director of the Board of Professional Conduct prepared the complaint to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings in the matter, pursuant to the instruction of the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals and upon a finding of probable cause by a review panel appointed by the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals in accordance with Gov. Jud. R. II, Section 6(A)(3). The remaining allegations in the grievance were dismissed as determined by the Panel to be without probable cause.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
