On Friday, November 1, 2024, The Chronicle reported that a three-judge panel of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct convened to hear a complaint from judicial candidate Giovanna Scaletta-Bremke against her opponent, Dan Petticord. The complaint alleges that Petticord made false statements against Scaletta-Bremke in a campaign mailer.
The Board of Professional Conduct is examining whether Petticord violated Rule 4.3 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. This rule prohibits judicial candidates from knowingly publishing false information or doing so with reckless disregard for the truth. Petticord has denied the allegations, maintaining his innocence during the hearing.
Both candidates are vying for the position of judge on the Lorain County Common Pleas Court, a seat currently held by Judge James Miraldi, who is ineligible to run again due to age limits. Scaletta-Bremke carries the burden of proof, needing to present “clear and convincing evidence” to substantiate her claims against Petticord.
Following the hearing, which took place via Zoom, neither candidate made comments, citing a pre-agreed decision to refrain from public discussion until after the polls closed. Teri Daniel, chair of the three-member commission, stated that the case is under advisement, though no timeline for a decision was provided.
The other panel members included Lori Herf, an attorney from Franklin County, and Judge Candace Crouse of the 1st District Court of Appeals, representing Hamilton County. The race is nonpartisan; however, Petticord participated in the Democratic primary, while Scaletta-Bremke ran in the Republican primary.
Scaletta-Bremke, who practices law privately and has significant experience with appellate cases, claimed that the claims made in Petticord’s mailer—that she had been criticized by the 9th District Court of Appeals—are false. She referenced her extensive legal background and her role in a successful campaign for another judge, asserting her commitment to ethical practices in judicial campaigns.
In her testimony, Scaletta-Bremke stated that there was no evidence in the extensive records of the 9th District Court to support the claim that she misled the court. She expressed concern that such accusations could negatively impact her reputation among potential voters and clients.
Petticord’s campaign mailer, described as a “chaser” mailer, was the only one sent by his campaign. He testified that he believed the statements in the mailer accurately reflected the 9th District Court’s critiques of Scaletta-Bremke’s work. He indicated that the language used by the court in their decisions was misleading, which informed his campaign’s messaging.
During cross-examination, Scaletta-Bremke acknowledged that the appeals court did point out instances where her handling of a case was criticized for taking testimony out of context. However, she firmly rejected the notion that she had misled the court.
Petticord’s attorney questioned Scaletta-Bremke’s trustworthiness, to which he responded that it would be “mixed.” He had previously refrained from addressing these concerns during public candidate forums, believing they were not relevant to the election.
Additionally, The Chronicle submitted a public records request to the Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office for any documentation related to an ethics complaint mentioned by Petticord. The request was denied, with officials stating that such complaints are confidential unless they proceed through the disciplinary process.
The hearing concluded without a definitive timeline for the panel’s decision, leaving both candidates awaiting the outcome as polling day approached.
Source: The Chronicle
