(Editor’s note: This op-ed was modified to reflect the current total of legal fees charged to Hamilton County on this case.)
I’ve been aware of room 315 in the Hamilton County courthouse for quite some time, and it’s evident that the Ohio Supreme Court is also aware of it. This room is the office of Pavan Parikh, the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts, and its importance should not be overlooked.
On Wednesday, a unanimous Ohio Supreme Court upheld a ruling that Parikh violated the law by removing public records from the clerk’s website. As a judge, I must keep the public informed about critical court issues, including troubling actions by the clerk that show an alarming overreach of power.
In 2022, Parikh removed the records of thousands of residential eviction cases from his office website. The Hamilton County Municipal Court judges learned about this from the Enquirer. According to Parikh, the online records hindered people from securing housing.
The clerk defended his policy by citing the existence of paper copies at his office. Sifting through a dusty box in the courthouse basement seems unfair, particularly when a public website of court records would provide no notice that such records exist. However, with the sudden restrictions on access to public records, the judges rightly sought a thorough explanation from the clerk.
Instead of meeting the friendly clerk described in the newspaper, we encountered a more serious representative of the Ministry of Truth. Parikh was intent on removing any information he deemed undesirable from his website.
Rather than posting the actual records, he replaced them with confusing legalese statements that would baffle even a sharp thinker like George Orwell. Parikh refused to meet with me to discuss the matter and shut the door on any further negotiations. Consequently, the judges had no choice but to order him to abandon his flawed approach.
Rather than comply, he sued us.
Parikh swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Still, in a display of hubris, he defied the judges, escalated tensions, and sued the entire municipal court bench. A state appeals court struck down his policy. Undeterred, Parikh petitioned the Ohio Supreme Court for relief. Different court, same unanimous result.
The high court told him to stay in his lane. Ohio law distinctly outlines the responsibilities assigned to the clerk’s office. It’s important to recall the circumstances that led to Parikh receiving this admonition. Judges have the authority to decide when court records may be sealed or expunged, while clerks are entrusted with preserving these records and ensuring public access to them. This delineation of duties is essential to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
Protecting public access to court records isn’t cheap. The cost of defending Parikh’s policy has been substantial. Taxpayers have borne the financial burden of the clerk’s courthouse misadventure, amounting to an eye-popping $80,541 to date.
Establishing a working relationship between the clerk and the court is essential for fostering public trust in our courthouse. But learning to govern can be quite an adventure for many newcomers to the office, full of twists, turns, and unexpected bumps.
Unlike past clerks, Parikh has overstepped his role, confusing the clerical duties of his office with policy-making. Fortunately, the previously deleted online records are now available on the clerk’s website.
But if you prefer a paper copy, stop by room 315.
Judge Josh Berkowitz is the presiding and administrative judge of the Hamilton County Municipal Court
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Hamilton’s clerk of courts broke the law. The Ohio Supreme Court called him out. | Opinion
Reporting by Josh Berkowitz / Cincinnati Enquirer
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
