Holding the Judiciary and Lawyers Accountable

COMMUNITYACTIVISM

Jon Morrow

Ohio has a had a growing problem with the professional legal community. The problem of unethical, criminal, and immoral behavior on display for all the public to see is apalling. Ohioans, in almost every poll, no longer trust the Ohio legal system.

The Ohio Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for policing and licensing the legal profession in Ohio. Yet, they seem to be asleep at the wheel. Worse yet, the do not believe in any type of transparency that would reaffirm confidence in our Judicial system.

Too many judicial and prosecutorial candidates either get easy questions, or they claim they cannot answer the question because they may be asked to rule on it. It's far past time to reform the Ohio Supreme Court and its policing duties.

Creation of State Appellate and Common Pleas Judges At-Large

The visiting judge program created by the Ohio Supreme Court has been fraught with absurd predicaments that reduce Ohioan's confidence in the legal system. Visiting judges are typically retired judges that are not popularly elected to hold office. They fill in when a judge recuses themself from a case due to a conflict of interest or something that would appear improper. Instead of hiring retired judges, Ohio should have at least six at-large judges sitting on a commission that are popularly elected and have up to ten assistant judges each to fill in when a judge recuses themself.

The "Special Prosecutor" program is fraught with even more scandal than the Ohio "Visiting Judge" program. Special prosecutors are supposed to be assigned to a case when the regular prosecutor has a conflict of interest. Most Special Prosecutors are practicing lawyers or retired prosecutors. Some regular prosecutors impose their will by shopping for special prosecutors who will do their bidding and pursue a case on how they would pursue it. When this happens, the conflict of interest has not improved with the special prosecutor's appointment. Most Ohioans agree this happens way too often. Ohio should have a pool of at least ten statewide popularly elected special prosecutors with up to three assistants each to fill in when a prosecutor recuses themself.

Creation of State Prosecutors

At-Large

Guardian Ad Litem Reform

Every year thousands of Ohio families are harmed by the Ohio Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) system. High-conflict divorces involving custody disputes are the most difficult of all, leaving many families financially ruined and mentally scarred. The only winners are the lawyers. If you are impoverished and cannot afford attorney fees and your former mate can, you may never see your children again. Many men and women are using the court system as a way to menace their previous mates.

GALs are not mental health professionals and have only had minimal training. While there are many good GALs out there, there are many who consistently make poor recommendations based on a lack of education.

We need to resolve family disputes much more quickly and reduce the mental and financial harm to the family. We advocate expanding the GAL system to three types of GALs. Investigator, Evaluator, and Advocate. A GAL investigator is a specially trained law-enforcement investigator who works for a forensic psychologist (the GAL evaluator.) The investigator collects information and looks into family squabbles and accusations. The investigator turns their data over to the GAL evaluator, who will also interview the family and evaluate their mental condition. The GAL evaluator will work with the GAL advocate (a lawyer) to prepare the court case and resolve the family conflict and mental health issues as quickly as possible.

All GALs would be paid for by the State - making it cheaper and quicker to get through a high-conflict divorce and custody battle.

We advocate for the passage of legislation that requires an annual vote of confidence for legal professionals within the government. If more voters have no-confidence in an officeholder than are confident of the officeholder. And, if there are more no-confidence votes than the officeholder received in the last election. Then the officeholder would be removed from the office.