An Ohio judge was wrong to hold a novice attorney in contempt for refusing to try a criminal case on less than three hours' preparation, an appeals court has ruled.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals said Portage County Municipal Judge John Plough should have granted the continuance that public defender Brian Jones wanted.

"Judge Plough improperly placed an administrative objective of controlling the court's docket above its supervisory imperative of facilitating effective, prepared representation and a fair trial," the appeals court said in its decision.

Mr. Jones had been practicing law for four months in August 2007 when his confrontation with the judge occurred. He met his client, Jordan Scott, and learned he was to immediately represent him in an assault trial the judge scheduled for that morning. Mr. Jones said he had a 20-minute session with his client but did not have time to interview the five witnesses to the alleged assault.

Mr. Scott faced up to 90 days in jail if he was convicted, so Mr. Jones asked the judge for a continuance. In response, Judge Plough moved the trial's starting time from 11 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

Mr. Jones then refused to proceed. Judge Plough held him in contempt and ordered sheriff's deputies to remove him from the courtroom.

Judge Plough later fined Mr. Jones $100 and ordered him to pay $48 in lost wages to three witnesses who skipped work to be in court. Those punishments, along with the contempt finding, were rescinded by the appeals court.

Defense lawyers from across the country offered assistance to Mr. Jones, saying he was looking out for his client when he resisted the judge.

"It would have been unethical for the lawyer to proceed with a case he wasn't prepared for, through no fault of his own," said Ian N. Friedman, a Cleveland lawyer who represented Mr. Jones in the contempt case.

First Published: January 7, 2009, 9:00 p.m.