| ► Ohio Disciplinary Counsel Jonathan Coughlan; malevolent martinet, ethically inept |
 |
 |
|
Ohio Disciplinary Counsel Jonathan Coughlan; malevolent martinet, ethically inept According to Judge Daniel Gaul of Cleveland, Jonathon Coughlan’s credentials for acting in an unbiased manner in disciplining wayward judges/attorneys is questionable to say the least.
  In an interview with reporter Leila Atassi of the Cleveland Plain Dealer (9/21/09), Judge Daniel Gaul stated he was convinced that the case against him was fueled by vengeance. Those seeds, he says, were planted two years ago at a legal symposium at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University, where Judge Gaul publicly criticized Coughlan for pursuing only the low-hanging fruit in his investigations, while letting important cases of misconduct in the legal community slide through the cracks.
Kudos to Judge Daniel Gaul for having the courage to tell it like it is. Put simply, the truth will set you free.
Jonathan Coughlan was personally selected to his post as Chief of Ohio Disciplinary Counsel by Chief Justice Thomas Moyer many, many years ago.
I’ve spent many, many years investigating judicial misconduct during Mr. Coughlan’s undistinguished reign as chief apologist/enabler for judicial/attorney misfits in Ohio. In the past, Mr. Jonathan Coughlin has refused to take any disciplinary action regarding the following matters despite being provided with drop-dead evidence.
I could if I wished go on and on and on; however, Judge Gaul is absolutely correct that Mr. Coughlan only “pursues the low-hanging fruit,” while refusing to go after well-connected attorneys and/or judges. On behalf of the sea of provable victims of attorney/judicial misconduct over the years, on their behalf, thanks Mr. Coughlan!
Maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh on Jonathan Coughlin for refusing to go after judges or lawyers who have bilked the state and/or their clients. After all, his record of hosing the state for travel expenses he clearly was not lawfully entitled to is sufficient evidence in support of Judge Gaul’s comments.
|