On Friday, February 7, 2025, the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio recommended that Judge John William Rudduck receive a public reprimand for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The findings stem from a disciplinary hearing held on November 8, 2024, during which allegations were presented regarding Rudduck’s use of his personal Facebook page to support his son’s judicial campaign.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge John William Rudduck,” with case number 2024-015.
Judge Rudduck, who has served as a judge in Clinton County for 39 years, was represented by attorney Lisa M. Zaring during the proceedings. The disciplinary counsel, represented by Joseph M. Caligiuri, outlined the charges against him, which included three specific violations of judicial conduct rules.
The case arose from posts made by Judge Rudduck on his Facebook account, where he identified himself as a judge while endorsing his son, Brett Rudduck, during the latter’s campaign for the Clinton County Municipal Court. The posts included endorsements and campaign materials, which were shared publicly on his page, which has approximately 1,500 followers.
The Board found that Judge Rudduck’s actions violated the following provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Rule 1.2, which requires judges to maintain public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity, and Rule 4.1(A)(3), which prohibits judges from publicly endorsing candidates for public office. The findings indicated that his conduct created an appearance of impropriety and undermined public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.
The complaint against Rudduck detailed multiple instances where he shared campaign-related posts and materials for his son, including a four-part essay he posted shortly after Brett was temporarily restricted from Facebook for alleged violations of the platform’s community standards. In the essay, Judge Rudduck defended his family against allegations made during the campaign, including claims of child abuse and substance abuse.
The hearing panel determined that there was clear and convincing evidence of professional misconduct. They noted that while Judge Rudduck claimed his intent was merely to support his son amid negative attacks, his public sharing of campaign materials constituted an endorsement of Brett’s candidacy.
The panel considered both aggravating and mitigating factors in their recommendation. Aggravating factors included Judge Rudduck’s refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his actions, the presence of dishonest motives, and the fact that he committed multiple offenses. Conversely, mitigating factors included his lack of prior disciplinary issues, his full cooperation during the proceedings, and positive character evidence submitted on his behalf.
The panel recommended a public reprimand as a suitable sanction, emphasizing that while Judge Rudduck no longer serves on the bench, it remains essential to uphold public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. They noted that the primary purpose of judicial discipline is to protect the public and ensure fair administration of justice.
The Board’s recommendation also includes an order for Judge Rudduck to remove any posts related to his son’s campaign from his Facebook page within ten days following the final disciplinary order. The proceedings concluded that such a removal is necessary to prevent further implications of misconduct.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
