The Ohio Supreme Court has suspended Judge Jon Marshal Ickes from practicing law for two years due to serious ethical violations, including harassment of a pregnant employee and fostering an inappropriate workplace environment. This ruling, issued on August 19, 2026, affects not only Ickes but also the integrity of the judiciary in Ohio, highlighting the importance of maintaining professional conduct among judges.
The court's decision came after a thorough investigation by the Board of Professional Conduct, which found that Ickes had committed 17 ethical violations, including using racial slurs and failing to disqualify himself from cases involving his stepson. The ruling emphasizes the high standards expected of judges and the consequences of failing to uphold those standards.
Jon Ickes, appointed to the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas in July 2020, faced allegations of misconduct that were detailed in a January 2025 amended complaint. The complaint included claims of harassment towards a pregnant employee, creating a hostile work environment, and inappropriate comments made in court. The case was brought to the Ohio Supreme Court after a four-day hearing conducted by a three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct, which ultimately recommended a one-year suspension.
The board's findings were based on testimony from 19 witnesses and over 65 exhibits. While the panel initially recommended a one-year suspension with conditions, the Supreme Court determined that Ickes's actions warranted a more severe penalty due to the nature and number of violations. Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, along with Justices Fischer, Hess, Hawkins, and Shanahan, agreed that judges must be held to a higher standard than attorneys.
In its ruling, the court stated, "Judges are held to a higher standard than attorneys who are not holding a judicial office." The court found that Ickes's misconduct included harassing a pregnant employee with inappropriate comments, using vulgar language, and fostering a culture of unprofessionalism within his courtroom. The court noted, "For the reasons that follow, we find that a harsher sanction than that recommended by the board is warranted, and we suspend Ickes from the practice of law for two years."
The ruling has significant implications for the judiciary in Ohio. It reinforces the expectation that judges must conduct themselves with dignity and respect, both in and out of the courtroom. The court's decision serves as a reminder that ethical violations will not be tolerated and that judges must be accountable for their actions.
In addition to the suspension, the court ordered Ickes to be immediately suspended from his judicial office without pay for the duration of his disciplinary suspension. This decision reflects the seriousness of the violations and the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in the judicial system.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Ickes himself. It sends a clear message to other judges and legal professionals about the importance of adhering to ethical standards. The court's decision may also influence future cases involving judicial misconduct, as it establishes a precedent for how similar situations will be handled in the future.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Ickes plans to appeal the court's ruling. However, given the severity of the findings and the strong stance taken by the Ohio Supreme Court, any appeal may face significant challenges. There are no related cases pending at this time, but the implications of this ruling will likely resonate throughout the legal community in Ohio.
The case of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ickes, docket number 2025-1323, underscores the importance of maintaining ethical standards within the judiciary and the consequences that can arise from failing to do so. As the legal community processes this ruling, it will serve as a reminder of the critical role that judges play in upholding the law and the expectations that come with that responsibility.