On Thursday, October 9, 2025, Sandusky Register reported that the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct ruled on the case of Sandusky County Judge Jon Ickes, following an investigation into multiple allegations of misconduct. While the board found that Ickes engaged in inappropriate behavior, it opted for a suspended one-year suspension of his law license, meaning the punishment will only be enforced if he commits further judicial misconduct within the next year.
The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, a branch of the Ohio Supreme Court, is responsible for addressing complaints against legal professionals in the state. The investigation into Judge Ickes was initiated in October 2024 by the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel, which subsequently cited him for six violations of judicial conduct.
The allegations against Ickes included claims that he harassed a pregnant employee, fostered an unprofessional work environment, used a racial slur, made vulgar comments about a child rape case, and failed to recuse himself from cases where his impartiality could be questioned.
During a hearing earlier in the year, the disciplinary counsel recommended a two-year suspension of Ickes’ law license, with one year suspended on the condition of no further misconduct. The board’s 29-page report detailed its findings on each count.
Regarding the treatment of a pregnant employee, the report cited an instance where Ickes made an inappropriate comment. While the employee expressed being upset, the board determined that she did not suffer harm as a result of Ickes’ actions, as she was considered a willing participant in the court’s environment until that point. The board found Ickes in violation of a judicial code of conduct rule requiring judges to be patient, dignified, and courteous.
The board also found that Ickes fostered an inappropriate workplace environment through jokes, pranks, vulgar language, sexual innuendo, and name-calling. Specific instances included using the term “Snatchchat” during jury instructions and referring to a courthouse employee with a derogatory term. The board ruled that Ickes violated rules promoting public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, as well as the requirement for judges to be patient, dignified, and courteous.
In another instance, Ickes was found to have used a racial slur in his office, which was overheard by a Black defendant. The incident occurred during a discussion about the movie “Blazing Saddles.” The board determined that Ickes violated rules regarding public confidence in the judiciary and the requirement for judges to be patient, dignified, and courteous.
The board also addressed allegations that Ickes made vulgar comments about a child rape case, referring to it as the “baby c— sucking case.” The board found that Ickes violated rules promoting public confidence in the judiciary and requiring judges to ensure that court staff act in accordance with a judge’s obligations.
Finally, the board addressed Ickes’ failure to recuse himself from two cases involving his stepson, Fremont police Detective Christian Ortolani. The board found that Ickes violated rules promoting public confidence in the judiciary and requiring judges to recuse themselves from proceedings where their impartiality might be questioned.
In its conclusion, the board stated that Ickes “behaved in a manner” that was “unbecoming of a jurist and allowed his staff to do the same.” However, the board also noted that Ickes’ misconduct did not rise to the level of some past cases in Ohio and that he took steps to rectify the issues once alerted to them.
Source: Sandusky Register
