Local judge faces 2-year suspension

FREMONT — A Sandusky County judge could potentially lose the ability to practice law for two years after the state's disciplinary board recommended the sanction following an investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct. The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct is a branch of the Ohio Supreme Court that handles complaints against lawyers and judges. The board concluded disciplinary proceedings on May 30 regarding alleged misconduct involving Sandusky County Common Pleas Court Judge Jon Ickes. Since its conclusion, the counsel proposed a two-year suspension of Ickes' law license in their post-brief filed on July 17. The disciplinary counsel first launched an investigation into the allegations against Ickes in October 2024, and later cited him for the following violations: • Count 1: Harassment of a pregnant employee • Count 2: Fostering an inappropriate and unprofessional work environment • Count 3: Use of a racial slur • Count 4: Lewd and vulgar characterizations of a child-rape case • Count 5: Failure to disqualify • Count 6: Conduct that adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law At the conclusion of the May proceedings, the panel dismissed certain rule violation allegations related to "professional misconduct" contained in counts 3, 4, 5 and 6. It remains unclear when the panel will make a final determination in Ickes' case and what his potential sanction would be. According to his docket with the board, the case is currently "awaiting (a) panel report." 'A pattern of misconduct' The board recommended a two-year suspension, with one year stayed, on the condition that he does not commit any additional misconduct. This means, unless he committed an additional violation in the first year of his suspension, the second year of the suspension would be dropped. In the disciplinary counsel post-hearing brief, attorneys wrote that, during the investigation into the complaints, they allegedly found Ickes to have acted with a "dishonest or selfish motive" due to having "engaged in a pattern of unwanted sexual comments and harassment toward female court employees." The investigation into Ickes began after numerous allegations of inappropriate workplace behavior were made against him and courthouse bailiff Candice Talbot in April 2024. Ickes paid for the Ohio-based law firm Clemans Nelson & Associates to investigate the claims. Following the investigation, Ickes later released two separate two-page reports: one covering the investigation into Talbot and the other for himself. According to the Clemans Nelson report, allegations against the judge include that he: • Made inappropriate comments regarding a pregnant woman's body, including comments about the "butt fairy" and made a similar remark about the woman's breasts; Talbot was also allegedly involved in the conversation and allegedly made inappropriate remarks relating to the woman's pregnancy. • Referred to a male human resources employee by a derogatory nickname • Described a county court case involving infant rape as the "baby (expletive) sucking case." Talbot also allegedly made the same remark. • Quoted a line from a movie that contained a racial slur, which allegedly happened in view of a defendant "This recommendation appropriately balances the need to protect the public, hold (Ickes) accountable, and begin the process of rebuilding public confidence in the judiciary," the post-hearing brief states. "It is both measured and necessary, especially given (Ickes') continued denial of responsibility and the widespread, enduring impact of his actions." Overwhelming support for judge In response to the disciplinary counsel's brief, Ickes and his lawyer, Lisa Zaring, cited several witnesses, mostly colleagues who gave largely positive feedback about Ickes, including Sandusky County prosecutor Beth Tischler. The work environment that Ickes' created since his appointment as judge was described by many as "laid back" and that everyone became "very close" to one another. Zaring argued with the board's claim that Ickes acted with a "dishonest or selfish motive" due to there reportedly being no allegations made to support that claim. "Judge Ickes is not alleged to have lied or hidden the truth at any point in time," Zaring wrote. "Similarly, there are no allegations that the judge took any action for his own personal gain or gratification." Zaring made the recommendation that Ickes receive a "fully stayed" one-year suspension.