Dan Petticord is focus of judicial board complaint filed by opponent Giovanna Scaletta-Bremke

The Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct on Friday filed a formal judicial complaint against Dan Petticord, a candidate for Common Pleas judge, based on a complaint referred to the board by his opponent, Giovanna Scaletta-Bremke. According to the complaint, Petticord allegedly "posted, published, broadcasted, transmitted, circulated, or distributed a judicial campaign communication that included a column with the heading 'His Opponent,'" meaning Scaletta-Bremke. Under that heading was the language "Repeatedly criticized for misleading the court," with an asterisk leading readers to citation in two cases Scaletta-Bremke was a part of in the 9th District Court of Appeals. Petticord is the head of Prosecutor J.D. Tomlinson's Civil Division, and Scaletta-Bremke is an attorney in private practice. They are seeking to replace Judge James Miraldi, who can't run again due to age limits on judges. The race is nonpartisan, but Petticord ran in the Democratic primary and Scaletta-Bremke in the Republican primary. Scaletta-Bremke frequently does appellate work for criminal defendants before the 9th District Court of Appeals in Akron. Among his other duties, Petticord is legal counsel to the Lorain County Board of Commissioners. Neither one has a prior disciplinary record, according to a search of an online database of Ohio attorneys published by the Ohio Supreme Court. A hearing of the Board of Professional Conduct is scheduled Monday (Nov. 4) via Zoom, the day before Election Day. A ruling by the hearing panel is not expected before the polls close on Election Day. In a phone interview, Scaletta-Bremke said she was "disappointed the press is reporting on (the complaint) because I've attempted to work this out privately with" Petticord. She said when that didn't happen, she decided to make a public statement. Petticord said discussions of a joint resolution of the complaint were ongoing as of Monday. According to the complaint, Petticord has violated Rule 4.3 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that judicial candidates may not "knowingly or with reckless disregard" publish campaign materials, advertisements or other materials knowing the information to be false or with a reckless disregard of whether or not it was false," according to the complaint. Scaletta-Bremke confirmed Monday that she filed the initial ethics complaint that led three members of a panel of the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct and its director, Rich Dove, to find probable cause to start formal disciplinary procedures against Petticord. Scaletta-Bremke represented clients Ryan Yatson and Jeffrey Newcomb in separate appeals. Citing decision by the 9th District Court of Appeals in the cases of State v. Yatson and State v. Newcomb, Petticord said he stood by "what the court of appeals said about her in the two decisions." "Both were very clear that she (Scaletta-Bremke) was misleading, cherry-picking facts and taking them out of context trying to bolster her argument," he said, and that she "misrepresented what the testimony was at trial." In a statement, Scaletta-Bremke wrote that what Petticord published was "false and defamatory." "... especially in a race that requires candidates have integrity and follow the law," she wrote. "As a result, the Board of Professional Conduct of the Ohio Supreme Court filed a complaint finding that there was probable cause that Dan Petticord has violated judicial cannons, the ethics rules that govern judges and judicial candidates," she wrote. "Our colleagues have highly recommended me in integrity and character and I have never even had a disciplinary complaint filed against me or a reprimand by any court," Scaletta-Bremke wrote. "I serve on our local ethics committee investigating attorney misconduct. I am committed to protecting my integrity, my good reputation, and holding lawyers accountable to the highest standards as our ethical rules require." She later added: "I question the ability of my opponent to put the law first, as his campaign slogan indicates, when even after the finding of a panel comprised of a judge and two well-respected attorneys found probable cause that his mailers violated ethical rules, he furthered his narrative to this publication." Yatson was convicted of felonious assault and related weapons charges at trial in 2020 for a drive-by shooting. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison for the crime. His supporters claim the crime was committed by another man, using Yatson's gun. Yatson's appeal was denied in 2022. The 9th District Court wrote: "To the extent Mr. Yatson claims that (North Ridgeville police) Capt. (Kevin) Jones conceded there was no evidence in support of the state's case, the record reflects that Mr. Yatson has taken the captain's testimony out of context." Jones "never conceded that the state lacked evidence to convict Mr. Yatson under the foregoing theories. Thus, this Court rejects Mr. Yatson's argument to the contrary," judges wrote. In Jeffrey Newcomb's case, he pleaded guilty to and was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender in Common Pleas court and sentenced to five years probation and 35 days in jail. His appeal later was denied. The appeals court wrote its 2020 decision that the appeal relied on "various statements made throughout his plea hearing in support of (Newcomb's) argument that the trial court imposed itself into plea negotiations and then reneged on its promise of a one-year community control sentence." "Upon review of the plea hearing transcript, however, we note that he supports his argument with cherry-picked statements taken out of context and strategically rearranged to suggest the trial court committed error," the appeals court wrote in its decision. Contact Dave O'Brien at (440) 329-7129 or dobrien@chroniclet.com.