Panel of judges recommends public reprimand, costs and fees for Petticord in judicial race complaint

A three-member panel of the Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct has recommended that Dan Petticord be reprimanded, pay costs and attorney fees to judge-elect Giovanna Scaletta-Bremke for violating a rule of judicial conduct during his campaign for Lorain County Common Pleas Court. The recommendation, made based on claims Petticord made about Scaletta-Bremke in a campaign mailer, now goes to a five-judge commission for a final decision. "I thought it was a fair comment, the panel disagreed, that's the process, and I will deal with the consequences of my decision," Petticord said Wednesday. Scaletta-Bremke declined comment on the board's finding. Neither Petticord, a chief assistant in Lorain County prosecutor in J.D. Tomlinson's office, nor Scaletta-Bremke, an attorney in private practice, has a prior disciplinary record. Scaletta-Bremke defeated Petticord in Tuesday's election, 64,220 votes to 50,786 votes, according to complete but unofficial results from the Lorain County Board of Elections. At a hearing via Zoom on Monday, 1st District (Hamilton County) Court of Appeals Judge Candace Crouse, Lake County attorney Teri Daniel and Franklin County attorney Lori Herf heard Scaletta-Bremke's evidence against Petticord. The Board of Professional Conduct, acting on a complaint by Scaletta-Bremke, alleged that Petticord made false claims against her in a campaign mailer over her legal work in two cases before the 9th District Court of Appeals. Petticord denied the claim. "Based on the parties' stipulations and evidence presented at the hearing, the panel finds, by clear and convincing evidence," that Petticord violated Rule 4.3 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, the panel decided, according to its ruling. Rule 4.3 states that judicial candidates may not "knowingly or with reckless disregard" publish campaign materials "knowing the information to be false or with a reckless disregard of whether or not it was false." "Upon consideration of the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, and case precedents, the panel recommends that (Petticord) receive a public reprimand, pay the costs of these proceedings, and pay attorney fees in an amount to be determined" by the five-judge commission, the panel wrote. Read the document: tinyurl.com/2swfu9ae In a "chaser" mailer sent to potential voters who requested mail-in absentee ballots, the Petticord campaign wrote that the 9th District Court of Appeals "repeatedly criticized" Scaletta-Bremke "for misleading the court" in two appeals cases she handled. A review of the cases State v. Yatson and State v. Newcomb cases "does not demonstrate that (Scaletta-Bremke) was criticized for misleading the court," the three-judge panel wrote in its decision. "These opinions illustrate that the appellate court was criticizing the arguments made by counsel, not" Scaletta-Bremke herself, the panel wrote. And because Scaletta-Bremke was representing two indigent criminal defendants on direct appeal, "the role of a criminal defense attorney on direct appeal requires broad latitude in drafting arguments," the panel wrote. Petticord's mailer contained no context, quotations, or citations of the language the appeals court used so that voters could draw their own conclusions, the panel wrote. It was the only mailer the Petticord campaign sent out this election season. Through her attorney, Scaletta-Bremke sent Petticord a "cease-and-desist" letter while also denying that she had been criticized for misleading the appeals court. She asked that Petticord pay more than $3,000 in attorney fees. Contact Dave O'Brien at (440) 329-7129 or dobrien@chroniclet.com.