1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge’s tactics of ‘overzealous collection’…

Ethics

Judge’s tactics of ‘overzealous collection’ lead to unpaid suspension

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 25, 2024, 2:47 pm CDT

The Ohio Supreme Court has suspended an Ohio judge who deemed it to be impractical to comply with a law setting procedural safeguards for jailing people for failure to pay fines.

Judge Kim Richard Hoover of the Stow Municipal Court in Stow, Ohio, has been temporarily removed from office without pay and suspended from law practice for 18 months, with six months stayed as long as he commits no further misconduct. His suspension from office coincides with the duration of his law practice suspension.

Court News Ohio has a summary of the Sept. 24 opinion noted by the Legal Profession Blog.

Hoover jailed two men for failure to pay fines and costs and coerced 14 other criminal defendants with threats of incarceration, the state supreme court said.

Hoover “leaned into the idea of a debtors’ prison,” the state supreme court said in its decision.

The Ohio Constitution prevents jailing defendants for failure to pay court costs, which are a civil obligation, rather than a criminal sanction. In addition, an Ohio law bars jailing offenders for failure to pay fines unless they have an ability to pay. Under the law, defendants are entitled to procedural safeguards, including the opportunity to present evidence on the issue and the right to an attorney.

Judges are required to segregate fines from court costs and to give people imprisoned for willfully failing to pay fines a credit of $50 per day toward the fine.

Hoover “fully admitted” that he doesn’t follow the Ohio law “because the statute does not work effectively for him,” the Ohio Supreme Court said. “Hoover found that applying [the law] and holding ability-to-pay hearings was impractical.”

Hoover argued that the 16 highlighted cases don’t show how he ran his courtroom during his lengthy service as a judge. Indeed, he had an “unblemished career of nearly 40 years as a lawyer and judge,” a panel of the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct noted after a hearing. He also had created programs to educate and rehabilitate defendants.

Hoover also argued that he had jailed or threatened jail time for many of the 16 defendants because they had demonstrated that they were irresponsible in the past by failing to appear for court dates or by failing to pay fines and costs for past convictions. His goal, he said, was to get defendants on the right track and teach them responsibility.

He also said his collection tactics helped fund the Stow Municipal Court without burdening innocent taxpayers.

The Ohio Supreme Court detailed Hoover’s treatment of the 16 defendants, including two instances of improper incarceration.

In one case, a defendant was arrested and jailed after failing to show up for a hearing regarding nonpayment. The next day, the defendant told Hoover that he wouldn’t be paid until a certain date, and jail time would affect his employment.

“Yeah. It probably will. That’s the problem with screwing with me,” Hoover replied. “When it comes time, I don’t care. And that’s where we’re at right now.” Hoover sent the defendant to jail for seven days.

In another instance, a defendant was brought back to court after four days in jail. Hoover asked whether he had learned his lesson “about being a deadbeat.” The defendant said he had.

“When you don’t take my orders,” Hoover continued, “I put you in an orange suit and say just sit there and look at the walls.” The judge also warned the defendant that he had to pay the balance due in 30 days “or we’re gonna be talkin’ orange again.”

The state supreme court concluded that Hoover’s “overzealous collection of unsegregated fines and costs manifested a bias against those of lower socioeconomic status,” a bias that “was readily apparent during his interactions” with defendants.

“Moreover,” the Ohio Supreme Court said, “by disregarding statutorily required procedures to achieve his goals of teaching defendants ‘basic discipline‘ and ‘basic responsibility,’ Hoover acted in a manner that diminished the public’s confidence in the judiciary and was prejudicial to the administration of justice.”