Disciplinary Counsel recommends suspension for Tiffin judge

The Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio has requested that the Board of Professional Conduct recommend that Judge Mark E. Repp of the Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court be suspended from the practice of law for one year, with six months of the suspension stayed on condition that he engages in no further misconduct. Repp's attorney, Lisa Zaring, countered with the suggestion for a fully stayed six-month suspension. A stayed suspension means that the suspension to practice law is not applied, so long as the judge engages in no further misconduct. These recommendations were part of post-hearing briefs in the Disciplinary Counsel v. Hon. Mark Edward Repp case, filed in December of last year. As of Thursday, May 20, the case is still awaiting a report from a probable cause panel. The panel will then make a recommendation to the full board, and then the final call will be made by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The briefs were required to address applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, a recommended sanction and case law in support of the recommendation. The grievance against Repp which led to the disciplinary hearing came after an incident in March 2020 involving Alexzandria Orta and Trevor Danner. Orta, age 20, was observing her boyfriend Danner's case in the courtroom on March 11. Court documents say Repp called out to her from the bench several times during an unrelated hearing, suggesting that she was a drug addict despite the fact that she was not on trial or probation and had never been charged with a drug-related offense. He demanded that she take a drug test, and when she refused, he held her in contempt of court and sentenced her to 10 days in jail. Orta's two children, the youngest being six months old at the time, were outside the courthouse with Danner's mother, according to court records. During Danner's hearing, Repp said "Wow, Ms. Orta's down here. She's probably going to jail, too. Who's watching the kids, Trev?" Repp also later told Danner that he was only in court that day because the police "hunted him down like a dog." That evening, Orta retained Attorney Dean Henry, who worked with Seneca County Prosecutor Derek DeVine to get her contempt charge dismissed. She was released from jail on March 12, 2020, and the third district court of appeals reversed and remanded her case on September 21. Speaking of Repp's alleged misconduct, disciplinary counsel Joseph Caliguiri cited a 2004 case, Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill, in which the Supreme Court of Ohio made the following statement: "Judges must be competent and ethical, and their actions must foster respect for their decisions as well as for the judiciary as a whole. Given that they hold positions of considerable authority and are entrusted with a great deal of power and discretion, judges are expected to conduct themselves according to high standards of professional conduct." Caliguiri claimed that Repp failed to meet those standards when he "taunted and incarcerated Alexzandria Orta, an innocent spectator, and then taunted and demeaned her boyfriend, Trevor Danner, during open court." Caliguiri alleged that Repp violated one section of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and three sections of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. The codes require a judge to act with "integrity, impartiality, patience, dignity and courtesy." In a response filed on January 5, a month after the complaint was filed, Repp admitted to violating three of the four sections of code. He acknowledged that he knew Orta was not on trial or probation and acknowledged that she made no disturbance in the courtroom. He had accused both Danner and Orta of overdosing on drugs, despite having no verifiable evidence of that and despite the fact that neither were charged with a drug-related offense. Caliguiri argued that Repp had failed to accept responsibility for the misconduct and showed a lack of remorse, saying that Repp attempted to downplay the severity of the misconduct throughout the hearing. "The first — and only — time that [Repp] considered his actions is when he recognized that his misconduct might affect his ability to practice law," Caliguiri wrote in the brief. Repp claimed he believed Orta was in the midst of an active overdose in his courtroom, and said he was "showing concern" for her. He said he could be "overly direct" at times, and said he had been having "a bad day" that day. "We pretty routinely get people who can't read and write," Repp said in the hearing. "The whole point is you need to get the point across. Now, sometimes, when I have said inappropriate things, I'm trying to get the point across." Caliguiri said respect for the judiciary would only be diminished if the panel were to accept Repp's claim that demeaning statements like "I hate to saddle the Seneca County jail with you" are acceptable methods to "get the point across." In Seneca County Prosecutor Derek DeVine's affidavit, DeVine alleges that two Seneca County assistant prosecutors heard Repp say that he got excited when sending people to jail. In Zaring's post-hearing brief, Repp is described as wanting to get Orta help for being under the influence. "It was not vindictive, it was not meant to harm, and it will not happen again," read the brief. "There is no reason to believe [Repp] knew what he was doing was wrong at the time." Zaring presented eight character witnesses to speak on behalf of Repp — six who wrote letters, and two who testified in person. According to the post-hearing brief, only one witness knew about the allegations against Repp, Assistant Prosecutor Charles R. Hall Jr., who confirmed that he heard Repp say the same statement that DeVine mentioned in his affidavit — that he enjoys putting people in jail. After learning that Orta was not on probation, Hall is quoted in the brief saying he was "absolutely horrified" by Repp's misconduct. "The picture that Hall painted is not one of a person who is acting out of care and concern … but of a person who needs others to know that he is in control regardless of the harm it may cause," the brief reads. Zaring's brief on Repp's behalf stated that "the wrongful nature of his conduct should not deflect from the fact that the motivation behind his conduct was rooted in his desire to improve his community one individual at a time." Though Caliguiri and Zaring have both filed their recommendations for sanctions for Repp, no final decision has been made by the Board of Professional Conduct. The timeline for that decision is uncertain.