Ohio Supreme Court to determine future of Sandusky County judge accused of harassment

by

2 minute read

FREMONT, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court is set to evaluate whether Sandusky County Judge Jon Ickes will retain his law license following multiple allegations of professional misconduct and sexual harassment.

A detailed 27-page complaint, issued by the Ohio Supreme Court’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel on Monday, describes a series of alleged violations involving Ickes, spanning from 2021 to early 2024.

The complaint accuses Ickes of breaching the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct through a range of actions that allegedly include harassment of a pregnant employee, creating an unprofessional work environment, making racially insensitive remarks near a criminal defendant, and vulgar characterizations related to a sensitive child rape case. The complaint further details Ickes’ use of inappropriate texts, comments, and images directed at court employees and defendants.

The situation also implicates Ickes’ bailiff, Candice Talbot, who was placed on paid administrative leave in May due to allegations connected to some of the documented behaviors. When disciplinary action against Talbot was initiated, Ickes reportedly halted the process, asserting that he alone held the authority to investigate complaints involving his court employees — including complaints directed at him. This intervention led the county’s human resources department to cease its inquiry.

If the Supreme Court’s disciplinary counsel moves to suspend or revoke Ickes’ law license, it would mark another rare but significant judicial action. In 2021, former Seneca County Judge Mark Repp faced a similar fate when his law license was suspended for one year, ultimately forcing him to vacate his position on the bench.

The complaint stands as a critical document in the proceedings, detailing inappropriate conduct that could lead to significant ramifications for Ickes and the Sandusky County judiciary. The counsel’s decision will have profound implications for Ickes’ future on the bench and could set precedent on handling judicial misconduct at this level.