Grendell Disciplinary Panel Recommends 18-Month Suspension

October 10, 2024 by Amy Patterson

A three-judge panel tasked with deciding the fate of Geauga County Juvenile/Probate Court Judge Tim Grendell asked the Ohio Supreme Court to impose an immediate 18-month suspension in a report filed Oct. 4.

The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct panel is made up of three judges from around the state — Rocky A. Coss, Frank C. Woodside III and chair Peggy J. Schmitz — and based its recommendations on hearings held across multiple dates from late February through April this year.

Richard Dove, OBPC executive director, signed off on their report, as did OBPC’s 28-member board, which includes 17 lawyers, seven active or retired judges and four non-lawyers.

“The board voted to adopt findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation of the hearing panel and recommends that respondent, Timothy Joseph Grendell, be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of 18 months, with six months stayed on the condition that he refrains from further misconduct and that … the supreme court’s disciplinary order include a provision immediately suspending respondent from judicial office, without pay, for the duration of his disciplinary suspension,” the judges said in their report to the state supreme court.

Further, the panel said Grendell should be ordered to complete eight hours of judicial ethics education that includes the appropriate use of contempt powers and be ordered to pay the cost of the disciplinary proceedings against him, which comes to a little over $23,000, according to the court.

Attorneys for the OBPC submitted their recommendation — a two-year suspension — to the disciplinary panel in July.

In recent years, similar cases involving judicial conduct have played out over long time periods, including a case against Stow Municipal Court Judge Kim Hoover, who was found to have violated the state’s code of judicial conduct by jailing two men for failing to pay court fines and costs, according to Court News Ohio.

While the OBPC recommended Hoover’s suspension in early February 2023, the state supreme court did not order his “immediate suspension” until Sept. 24, 2024, meaning the court’s decision in Grendell’s case may not come soon.

Aggravating Factors

Near the end of their 88-page report, the three-judge panel outlines what they call “aggravating factors” in Grendell’s case.

The first is that he “acted with a selfish or dishonest motive,” including in a case involving the imprisonment of two young brothers who had refused to visit their father. Evidence presented at Grendell’s hearings, and in filings made by the OBPC, showed he berated an older sibling of the brothers, and forced them into isolation and other harsh conditions at the Portage County Juvenile Detention Center in late June 2020.

“(Grendell) abandoned his duty to act in the best interests of the children and embarked on a course of conduct that included baselessly disparaging one of the children and unlawfully ordering the other two children to be placed in detention, among other improper actions, all while dishonestly claiming he was acting in the children’s best interest, without ever conducting a hearing on the best interest factors,” the panel said.

In a response for comment Oct. 8, Grendell said he respectfully disagreed with the court’s decision.

“I temporarily placed two juveniles in custody for being unruly four years ago,” he said. “The Ohio statute and 11th district appellate court rulings specifically permitted such placement.”

Further, Grendell said, his decisions were based on recommendations of the Domestic Relations Court’s appointed mental health expert, who he said testified that letting the boys terminate their relationship with their father would cause them permanent psychological harm.

“When the older boy turned 18, he moved out of his mother’s house and moved in with his dad. Unfortunately, he died in a motorcycle accident before the hearing,” Grendell said.

The other two charges laid against Grendell included misconduct in his behavior toward the office of Geauga County Auditor Chuck Walder. That dispute led to a confrontation on the sidewalk outside of Walder’s office, during which witnesses claimed Grendell yelled at and threatened Chardon Police Lt. Troy Duncan.

“(Grendell) threatened law enforcement officers and elected officials in an effort to protect his staff members from investigation and prosecution of criminal charges,” the panel said, adding previous cases have established that “a selfish motive is not necessarily limited to the personal benefit of the respondent but may also apply when the respondent’s misconduct benefits a family member or friend. Certainly, protecting his staff members in this case would benefit both respondent and his staff.”

In his response, Grendell stood by his actions.

“I defended my staff from Auditor Walder’s ongoing false public accusations of criminal misconduct by the court’s staff to preserve public confidence in the court,” he said, referring to Walder and a special prosecutor pursuing criminal action against two of his staff that he said was ultimately thrown out by the late Judge Forrest Burt and a jury.

Another charge against Grendell stems from his June 6, 2020, statehouse testimony in favor of a bill put forward by his wife, then-state Rep. Diane Grendell, which questioned the state’s COVID statistics. Grendell closed his Geauga County court in order to testify that day.

“I spoke to the Legislature about the problems that less than full information about COVID were causing the courts and community by giving out only partial and misleading COVID information four years ago,” Grendell said in his response. “None of my decisions were appealed or reversed by the appellate court. I had a right under the First Amendment and the Ohio Constitution to present these comments to the Ohio Legislature. No attorney for the parties accused me of bias or lack of impartiality and no one filed to have me disqualified.”

The three-judge panel, however, disagreed.

“(Grendell’s) only plausible motive, and the only reason for closing his court in order to testify in favor of a bill for which his wife was the primary sponsor, was for the benefit of his and her personal and political interest, as he clearly had no special knowledge or expertise regarding the topic,” the panel said.

Grendell also submitted false statements during the disciplinary process, including saying the two brothers he had sent to the Portage juvenile detention center were present at a hearing they did not attend, the panel added. Further, Grendell said handcuffs were removed from the boys as they attended the hearing.

“All of these statements were patently false,” the panel judges said. “During the disciplinary hearing, (Grendell) admitted, and others confirmed, that no detention hearing was held, that the boys and their mother never entered the courtroom on June 1, 2020, and were never told that the scheduled detention hearing was not going forward.”

Instead, the panel said evidence in Grendell’s disciplinary hearing showed the brothers were driven to the court that morning by a deputy sheriff and were kept in a holding cell outside the courtroom for three hours, with no lunch, and with one remaining in handcuffs the entire time.

“Given the level of detail in the statements, it is clear that they were not accidental misstatements. Moreover, while testifying in the disciplinary hearing, (Grendell) claimed, for the first time, that no detention hearing was necessary because the boys were being released,” the panel said.

Harm to Vulnerable Victims

Grendell, according to the panel’s report, also refused to acknowledge any wrongful conduct, which the panel said was “untenable in light of his own testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing.”

In their report, the panel said Grendell caused harm to vulnerable victims — the two brothers referenced in the case.

“The harm caused by (Grendell’s) order to place 15-year old (child) and 13-year old (child) in detention during the height of the COVID pandemic — separated from each other, and without the ability to communicate with their mother, even though parental contact was required by law — was horrific and completely unnecessary and uncalled for,” the panel said. “Respondent could have proceeded with the unruly charges without ordering detention, and, by law, should have done so, but chose not to.”

Citing testimony from the disciplinary hearing, the panel said professionals involved in the case both at the Portage juvenile detention center and within Geauga County law enforcement were disturbed by his treatment of the brothers, with one deputy testifying that it made him feel “horrible” to drive the boys to the detention facility.

“The harm caused to the … family is particularly egregious because it was gratuitous. (Grendell’s) draconian solution of using unruly charges and detention as a coercive tool to force the boys to visit with their father was simply a means to accomplish his desired outcome in the private custody matter, enabling him to succeed where other courts had failed,” the panel said.

In his response, Grendell said he would be appealing the OBPC decision to the Ohio Supreme Court “with confidence of a better outcome” and emphasized his years of judicial, military and community service.

“I have served my country with honor as a military attorney with two meritorious service medals. I have provided countless hours of my personal time helping Geauga County residents save money by presenting the Good Deeds Program,” he said. “I have continued to teach for the Ohio Supreme Court Judicial College the last four years. My fellow judges have elected me an officer of the Ohio Probate Judges Association and a member of the National College of Probate Judges Executive Committee.”

The entire 88-page report is available at www.geaugamapleleaf.com.