Ohio Supreme Court's Proposed Rules of Superintendence

The Ohio Supreme Court’s Commission on Rules of Superintendence doesn’t have the constitutional authority to draw up rules on what court records the public should have access to, according to Cleveland attorney David Marburger.

His comments were in response to a set of proposed rule amendments the Court now has under advisement.

Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, Commission chair, disagrees, citing the Constitutional provision that the Supreme Court is to oversee all state courts and set rules & procedures for them.

Marburger told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that “open court records are a substantive right that the Court doesn’t have a constitutional right to impede by assigning rules,” and that “other attorneys should be just as concerned about access because they use all types of records to defend clients.”

Justice Lanzinger, though, also commented that she was surprised that “the general feedback from the public was that the commission was trying to close off access rather than keep it open,” which, she said, couldn’t be further from the truth.

Up to two years ago, issues centering around access to court records were handled with reliance on the state’s open-records statutes, or case law. But the article says that “two years ago, the Ohio legislature tinkered with the public-records law and considered slipping in a provision to exempt all court records, which led to arguments over a separation of powers.” That’s when Chief Justice Moyer decided to “move court records under the judicial branch of the government.” (See our prior post and the Ohio Legislative Service’s analysis)


Current Rules of Superintendence