Ginger Bock

Office: For Judge of the First District Court of Appeals

Term Beginning 2/9/2021

Age: 48

Residence: Cincinnati



Social Media:
twitter: @gingerforjudge

Occupation: Attorney

Education: J.D. from University of Cincinnati College of Law, Summa Cum Laude)

Work Experience: My primary focus has been appellate advocacy. I have argued before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and intermediate Ohio Courts of Appeals. I currently serve as the Staff Attorney for Judge Thomas Beridon.

Family: Married with two children, aged 6 and 4.

Affiliations: NAACP (Lifetime Member); Cincinnati Bar Association (Member); American Constitution Society (Member); National Association of Women Lawyers (Member); Finneytown Elementary Parent Teacher Association (Member; Grants Committee)

Endorsements: 2020: Hamilton County Democratic Party (, Bold New Democracy, Cincinnati AFL-CIO Labor Council, Cincinnati Building Trades, Cincinnati Federation of Teachers, Communications Workers of America Local 4400, Equality Cincinnati PAC, The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 212, Ohio AFSCME Power In Action, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 392, Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 24, United Food and Commericial Workers Local 75.

In 2018, I was endorsed by the Sentinel Police Association, Cincinnati AFL-CIO Labor Council, Cincinnati Federal of Teachers, Greater Cincinnati UAW-CAP Labor Council, Greater Cincinnati Building Trades, UFCW Local 75, Cincinnati Women’s Political Caucus, LiUNA Local 265, OAPSE/AFSME, AFS-CME Ohio Council 8, and more.

Bar Association Ratings: N/A.

(1) List your judicial experience (courts and years)
Although I have not been a judge, I have served as a Staff Attorney for Judges in both the Court of Appeals and the Court of Common Pleas. In both Courts, I reviewed and analyzed parties’ briefs, researched the issues, and drafted the opinions that the Judges issued. In both Courts, the Judges for whom I worked valued issuing full opinions that included clear legal reasoning, rather than the short judgment entries that some First District Court of Appeals Judges frequently issue.

(2) What about your non-judicial legal experience qualifies you to be a judge?
My parents raised me to work hard, recognize injustice, and fight for fairness. From a young age, I have spent my life working to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and with respect. After graduating from Miami University in 1994, I spent ten years working at non-profit organizations. This work gave me the opportunity to meet and work closely with real people who are affected every day by decisions made by those in authority.

Following law school, I worked for two years at the First District Court of Appeals as a staff attorney. There, I got a first-hand view of how the Court worked. I observed Court practices that helped ensure fairness and some that I believe should be changed. Further, I had the opportunity to improve my legal writing to ensure that I could be an excellent appellate advocate.

After my clerkship, I focused on appellate advocacy. I have argued before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Ohio intermediate Courts of Appeals. I have had the opportunity to observe many great judges and some that I did not believe should be on the bench. I have seen first-hand how excellent judges ensure that the system is fair for all people, regardless of race, age, income level, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

(3) Why are you running for this particular court seat?
My legal career has focused on appellate advocacy. Through my work in various courts, I believe that some improvements will make the First District Court of Appeals an exemplary court.

TRANSPARENCY. Many decisions from the Court are short entries that do not adequately inform parties why they have won or lost. Not only is it good practice to issue a full decision with the legal reasoning behind decisions, but also it helps increase trust in the system when people understand why a court rules in a particular way.

ACCESS. Most people are aware that criminal defendants have the right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one. But in the civil system, parties are not entitled to attorneys, other than for a narrow class of cases. As a result, when people without financial resources have legal issues, they either try to handle it themselves or ignore it. This leads to lower-income people having judgments levied against them without anyone hearing the cases on their merits, simply because the parties cannot afford to hire attorneys. In appellate practice, arguments must be crafted in specific ways for any chance of success, making it even more difficult for non-attorneys to navigate appeals. My hope is for our Court of Appeals to create a program in which lower-income people with appellate cases can be matched with attorneys seeking appellate experience, complete with a mentoring system. I will work with other judges and attorneys to make this hope a reality so that low-income people are able to participate in our Court of Appeals.

WORK ETHIC. Many attorneys have experienced the disappointment of appearing before a judge who is not prepared or who has not taken the time to understand the nuanced issues. Being a judge means being a public servant. As a judge, I would take that responsibility seriously. Whether it takes 40 hours per week or 80, I will be thoroughly prepared for every single case that appears before me. I love reading, writing, and researching. All parties who appear before me would know that I read their briefs, did my research, and could feel confident that win or lose, at least they had a judge who listened and understood their issues.