Should taxpayers foot Judge Grendell’s disciplinary bill? Editorial round table

Geauga County Probate and Juvenile Court Judge Timothy Grendell has asked Geauga County commissioners to pay $300,000 in legal fees he incurred fighting state disciplinary charges and then pay a lawyer for up to $25,000 U.S. Dollar to defend him as he tries to get the Ohio Supreme Court to overturn or modify the recommended sentence – 18 months suspension from the Bank, including six months if he avoids further misconduct. Grendell’s current term ends in just over two years, after which he will be ineligible to run again due to Ohio’s judicial age limits.

Grendell argues that the commissioners must pay legal fees arising from his actions in office, even though after an investigation by the Ohio Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Advisory Office it was determined that some of those actions included violations of legal standards in three separate hearings earlier this year.

Some of the misconduct involving two brothers whom Grendell had held in separate solitary confinement for 72 hours in 2020 after the boys did not consent to a visit with their father appears particularly egregious. The older boy, then 15, suffered a complete personality change after incarceration, family members said, going from getting straight A grades to failing grades, becoming withdrawn and eventually dropping out of school and moving to Florida, where he died in a motorcycle accident in 2023.

Should taxpayers in Geauga County be responsible for covering legal fees related to cases of alleged judicial misconduct? The Editorial Advisory Board Roundtable comments.

Thomas Suddes, editorial writer:

Everyone deserves their day in court – with effective representation. The fair response to Judge Grendell’s request should be based on precedent: Have the taxpayers of other Ohio counties covered the costs of advising a judge facing disciplinary proceedings? If other counties have done this, then Geauga Countians are likely obligated to fund Grendell’s defense. If this is not the case in the other Ohio counties, the judge is probably on his own.

Ted Diadiun, columnist:

This is more complicated than it seems. One can appeal the judge’s decisions in these cases, but they were made in good faith and in compliance with the law. How can a judge decide controversial cases knowing that he may be on his own if his decisions lead to legal action? As a Geauga County resident, I’m not happy about this, but the county has to pay.

Eric Foster, columnist:

If Grendell were sued by his victims, I could imagine an argument for the government to cover his legal fees. However, this is not the case. This is more akin to a prosecutor charging him with committing crimes. The state should not cover an employee’s legal fees in this scenario.

Lisa Garvin, editorial board member:

Grendell’s proposal is outrageous and it’s disheartening that two of Geauga County’s three commissioners are still considering it. Instead of asking for the money up front, he presented the bill from expensive lawyers. I think it’s evidence that the Grendell dynasty continues to dominate local politics despite questionable ethics. You’d think taxpayers would be tired of this by now.

Mary Cay Doherty, Editorial Board member:

Regardless of the circumstances, taxpayers should not be responsible for legal fees incurred without prior approval from the Geauga County Commissioners. In ruling in the Greene County case in 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that the county was not responsible for a probate judge’s legal fees because under Ohio law, the county, not the judge himself, should have retained the judge’s legal counsel should.

Elizabeth Sullivan, Opinion Director:

While law and precedent will likely determine whether Grendell gets his legal fees paid, I urge the residents of Geauga County, who have repeatedly elected and re-elected Grendell as judge, to consider the findings of fact against him in the October 4 filing “Cases” to be read pending” part of the disciplinary advisor’s file. Grendell has had a long career in public office, but his misconduct, abuses and bias in the visitation case detailed in the documents are shocking and raise the question of why he is not facing a complete ban from serving as a judge.

Do you have anything to say on this topic?

* Send a letter to the editor, that are being considered for print publication.

* Submit general questions about our editorial team or comments or corrections to this editorial roundtable by email to Elizabeth Sullivan, Opinion Director, at [email protected]