On Friday, March 31, 2023, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a notice of oral argument regarding the case of Hon. Kim Richard Hoover, a judge in the Stow Municipal Court in Ohio.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Kim Richard Hoover,” and was brought by the Disciplinary Counsel with case no. 2023-0188.
The charges cited Code of Judicial Conduct 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, and 8.4(d) which states:
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
A judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice.
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
This case started when Hon. Hoover received complaints on December 6, 2021, about his employment of illegal and coercive tactics, such as imprisonment for several days or detention for several hours, to force unrepresented criminal defendants to pay their fines and costs. Allegedly, as a result, the respondent has exhibited a bias against people who appear without counsel and cannot afford to pay their fines and costs.
The case in question pertained to the respondent’s methods of collecting fines and costs from municipal defendants, and whether those methods are legal. The complaints also examined whether vulnerable individuals were coerced into paying costs and fines, which could be seen as a modern-day debtor’s prison.
The report states:
“The board stated that the respondent failed to comprehend the significant impact that his conduct has had on both the victims and their families. In this case, the victims were municipal court defendants who were poor and downtrodden in society. All were struggling financially, and according to the board, these individuals should not lose their liberty when others would not. The panel notes the repeated and obvious disparate treatment of the respondent to the socioeconomically disadvantaged as an aggravating factor.”
The report continues:
“The board noted the judicial philosophy of the respondent where he states, “If you don’t have any money, then it ain’t going to work out for you today.” According to the board, this philosophy of the respondent does not promote the public’s confidence in the judiciary and is inconsistent with a judge’s fundamental responsibility to do justice.”
In the respondent’s objection to the factual findings, he argued that he had issued a valid sentence within the confines of the applicable law and fashioned alternatives for the benefit of the defendant and the overwhelmed court system as a whole. The respondent went on to explain each charge against him and justified his actions, stating that it was the relator’s responsibility to prove his conduct by clear and convincing evidence.
In the most recent development of the said case, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a notice of oral argument wherein it laid out the details regarding the time allowed for each side to present their argument. It also reminded the parties that attorneys who argue before the court must comply with the provisions of Rules 17.03 through 17.05 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
The Notice of oral argument states:
“The Supreme Court of Ohio will hold an oral argument on the merits in this case on Wednesday, May 17, 2023. The time allowed for oral argument will be 15 minutes per side. Counsel for the respondent shall argue first.
The court convenes promptly at a.m. Counsel in all cases is expected to be present when the court convenes. Counsel must register with the Chief Deputy Clerk prior to 8:45 a.m. at the information desk outside the Courtroom on the first floor of the Ohio Judicial Center.”
Judge Hoover attended the University of Akron School of Law.
Judge Hoover’s Courtroom is located at 4400 Courthouse Blvd, Stow, OH 44224, and can be reached at +1 330-564-4200. His info can be found on stowmunicourt.com.
A copy of the original filing can be found here
