The Supreme Court of Ohio has publicly reprimanded a Hamilton County Probate Court judge for making inaccurate, demeaning statements in a Facebook spat with a participant in a court case.

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court reprimanded Judge Ralph Winkler for four violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court found Judge Winkler improperly authorized assistant court administrator Scott Weikel to make false statements to a news reporter, followed by his own misstatements, which he posted on Facebook in 2022 and quickly deleted.

“In this case, Winkler and Weikel – a court administrator who was under Winkler’s supervision and control – made inaccurate, inappropriate, and inflammatory statements regarding the facts of a pending case that were not supported by the record,” the Court stated.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, and Melody Stewart joined the per curiam opinion. Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Jennifer Brunner, and Joseph T. Deters did not participate in the case.

Handling of Guardianship Case Upsets Family Members
Judge Winkler served as a judge on the Hamilton County Municipal Court and Hamilton County Common Pleas Court before being elected the county probate court judge in 2014 and reelected in 2020. Prior to his election as probate judge, 83-year-old Mary Frances McCullough, with the aid of an attorney, applied in 2013 to appoint her attorney as her conservator. In her filing, she maintained that she was competent at the time.

The woman had three adult children, Theresa McClean, Kathleen Bosse, and John Robert “Rob” McCullough. Shortly after the probate court appointed the attorney as the conservator, McClean sought to terminate the conservatorship, arguing her mother was mentally incompetent. McClean asked the probate court to make her the guardian of her mother. A court magistrate declared the mother incompetent and appointed the attorney serving as her conservator, not her daughter, as her guardian.

In 2015, with Judge Winkler now on the bench, the attorney guardian resigned, and Judge Winkler appointed another attorney to be the guardian. In the following years, Bosse and Rob McCullough sent numerous letters and emails to the probate court accusing the guardian of misconduct and complaining about the guardianship process.

Judge Winkler learned that three websites had been anonymously created using the names of the second attorney guardian and two probate court magistrates. The contents of the sites resembled McCullough’s and his sister’s filings with the court. In March 2019, a detective with the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office sent McCullough a letter regarding a “threatening and harassing correspondence” McCullough had sent to a magistrate and several assistant county prosecutors. The detective’s letter directed McCullough not to have further contact with the prosecutor’s office or the magistrate.

Disputed Guardianship Goes Public
In January 2019, a news reporter contacted the probate court regarding the guardianship case. Winkler admitted he authorized Weikel to speak to the reporter on behalf of the court, and Weikel told the reporter that McCullough’s mother was removed from her home because it was a “squalid, unsafe living environment.” He also said that McCullough was not properly caring for his mother. The reporter emailed Weikel’s comments to McCullough for a response.

McCullough shared Weikel’s statements with his sister. More than a year later, the sister sent Judge Winkler a letter stating Weikel’s statements were incorrect. The letter, which included a timeline of events and references to records filed in the court, was not reviewed by Judge Winkler.

The dispute about the guardianship escalated online. The probate court maintained a Facebook page, and Judge Winkler added his name to the page when he was elected to the court. In the same month that Judge Winkler received the letter about the McCullough case, he posted an interview with one of his court magistrates, Kenneth Coes, about topics unrelated to McCullough’s case.

Two years after the interview was posted, McCullough posted comments on the Facebook page making critical comments about Coes. That night, Judge Winkler responded to McCullough’s remarks.

“Rob McCullough you’re just mad because we had to intercede and take care of your mother when you did not. You were living in your Mothers house in deplorable conditions,” Judge Winkler wrote.

The judge also posted that a “nice neighbor” called adult protective services, which led to McCullough’s mother being placed in a health care facility.

McCullough responded to Judge Winkler’s post, which led to further comments from the judge. Included in the judge’s reply was the comment that McCullough was wrong for not taking care of his mother, and “when you did make it to Court you often reeked of alcohol.” The judge added, “Don’t try to blame my court or Magistrate Coes for your shortcomings as a son.”

Board Finds Conduct Violations
Based on the Facebook comments and the statements to the media, the Ohio State Bar Association in 2023 filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Conduct, claiming Judge Winkler violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Winkler admitted to the allegations.

Judge Winkler stipulated that the statements he and Weikel made about McCullough’s mother being removed from her home were inaccurate, misleading, and unsupported by the record of the guardianship case. The woman was not removed from her home because of living conditions, but rather, the guardian moved her to an assisted living memory care unit under the belief that she would benefit from the increased structure, supervision, and activities available.

At his misconduct hearing, Judge Winkler acknowledged the photos from the McCullough home that he contended was in deplorable condition were from the time the guardian sought permission to sell the house, which was sometime after McCullough’s mother had moved into assisted living.

Judge Winkler admitted that several of his responses on Facebook were inaccurate, including his claim that a neighbor had called senior services about the elderly woman, that she was the victim of elder abuse, and that the court had to intercede to take care of her because her son failed to do so.

The board found that while Judge Winkler did not intentionally post inaccurate information, he commented without reviewing the record or refreshing his memory of the case.

Within hours of posting the messages, Judge Winkler deleted the posts and McCullough’s comments on the Facebook page.

Judge Winkler imposed a media policy in which he would not publicly comment about details of pending cases and that he would obtain signed releases from families authorizing him to talk about their cases in public or in Facebook posts.

The parties stipulated, and the board found, Judge Winkler violated four rules, including failing to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary and failing to be patient, dignified, and courteous to those the judge encounters in his official capacity.

The Court adopted the board’s recommendation that Judge Winkler receive a public reprimand, noting he made a good-faith effort to rectify the situation by removing the Facebook comments and apologizing to McCullough. The Court noted that Judge Winkler testified his conduct was out of character for him and that he would never do it again.

“He did not attempt to excuse his conduct but explained that it was motivated in part by a desire to defend Magistrate Coes from what he perceived to be Rob’s unjust attack,” the Court stated.

In addition to the reprimand, Judge Winkler was ordered to pay for the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

2024-0488. Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Winkler, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-3141.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.