Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Four appellants sought post-conviction relief in Elkhart County, Indiana, alleging systemic police and prosecutorial misconduct that led to wrongful convictions. They argued that the judge, who had recused herself in a similar prior case involving Andrew Royer, should also recuse herself from their cases due to similar concerns about impartiality. The judge had previously recused herself in Royer's case because she had characterized Royer's attorney's comments as "defamatory" and had worked with many of the witnesses Royer intended to call, raising questions about her impartiality.In the lower courts, the Elkhart Circuit Court judge denied the appellants' motions for recusal, reasoning that her prior employment as a deputy prosecutor did not necessitate recusal and that her comments in Royer's case were misunderstood. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decisions, agreeing with the judge's reasoning.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the judge's prior decision to recuse in Royer's case should have compelled her to recuse in these cases as well. The Court held that an objective observer, aware of the judge's prior recusal and the similar concerns raised in these cases, would reasonably question her impartiality. The Court emphasized that the judge's entanglement with the evidence had only deepened, and there was no change in circumstances that would eliminate the concerns leading to her initial recusal.The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court's orders denying the motions for recusal and remanded the cases with instructions to grant the motions, ensuring that the judge recuses herself from these proceedings. View "Seabolt v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court approved the conditional agreement of the parties in this attorney discipline case involving Respondent Theodore Rokita, the Attorney General of Indiana and their proposed discipline of a public reprimand, concluding that, for Respondent's professional misconduct, a public reprimand was appropriate.At issue was Respondent's appearance on a national television program on July 13, 2022 to discuss an Indiana physician who had performed an abortion on a ten-year-old rape victim from Ohio and his description of the physician as an "abortion activist acting as a doctor - with a history of failing to report." The Supreme Court found that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.6(a) and 4.4(a) by making this statement and that, for Respondent's professional misconduct, a public reprimand was appropriate. View "In re Rokita" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court found that the Honorable Jason A. Cichowicz, Judge of the St. Joseph Probate Court, engaged in judicial misconduct and concluded that Judge Cichowicz shall be suspended from the office of Judge of the St. Joseph Probate Court without pay for forty-five days.The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed a "Notice of the Institution of Formal Proceedings and Statement of Charges" against Judge Cichowicz arguing that the judge engaged in judicial misconduct by, among other things, continuing to serve in a fiduciary position for a non-family member after taking office and abusing his office to benefit a family member. Judge Cichowicz agreed that his conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and that an appropriate sanction was a forty-five-day suspension without pay plus an assessment of costs. The Supreme Court approved the suspension, holding that the sanction was within the range imposed for similar misconduct. View "In re Honorable Cichowicz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Respondent, the Honorable Jeffrey F. Meade, Judge of the Gibson Circuit Court, engaged in judicial misconduct and that his misconduct warranted a seven-day unpaid suspension from office.The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed a complaint against Respondent, charging that Respondent engaged in judicial misconduct by making intemperate comments from the bench, holding an off-the-record and unrecorded child-in-need-of-services hearing, and by failing to provide all parties to the proceedings with sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court agreed that Respondent's misconduct violated several provisions of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct and that the misconduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. View "In re Meade" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court found that Respondent, the Attorney General of Indiana, committed acts of misdemeanor battery, conduct that violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d), and that Respondent should be suspended for thirty days with automatic reinstatement.The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a disciplinary complaint against Respondent alleging that his conduct at a local bar involving various forms of nonconsensual and inappropriate touching violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d). A hearing officer found that Respondent violated the rules and recommended that Respondent be suspended for at least sixty days without automatic reinstatement. The Supreme Court concluded that Respondent violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d) and suspended Respondent from the practice of law for a period of thirty days. View "In the Matter of Curtis T. Hill, Jr." on Justia Law

In these three judicial misconduct proceedings, the Supreme Court held that three judges engaged in judicial misconduct by appearing in public in an intoxicated state and behaving in an injudicious manner and by becoming involved in a verbal altercation.The Supreme Court issued a single opinion for all three cases because the misconduct charges stemmed from the same incident. The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed charges against Respondents after an evening of drinking led to a physical altercation and two judges being shot. One judge was criminally charged and convicted after the altercation. Respondents agreed that their respective conduct violated several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Supreme Court found that Respondents engaged in judicial misconduct and ordered that each judge be suspended from the office of judge without pay for thirty days. View "In re Honorable Andrew Adams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court found that the Honorable Robert W. Freese, Judge of the Hendricks Superior Court 1, engaged in judicial misconduct and ordered that Judge Freese be suspended from the office of judge without pay for forty-five days.The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications charged that Judge Freese's conduct violated four provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that Judge Freese engaged in judicial misconduct by appointing an unqualified friend as trustee of a trust and personal representative of a related estate, failing to disclose the friendship or a financial relationship with the friend, and failing to act promptly when faced with evidence of the friend's mismanagement and embezzlement of the funds entrusted to him. The Court concluded that a forty-five-day suspension from office was warranted under the circumstances. View "In re Honorable Robert W. Freese" on Justia Law

In this mandate-of-funds action in which the only remaining dispute was over what attorney's fees and expenses the Judges of Lake Superior Court should recover, the Supreme Court affirmed the Special Judge's ruling that the Judges were entitled to recover $176,467.17, holding that the Special Judge did not abuse his discretion.In 2017, fourteen Judges of the Lake Superior Court issued an order of mandate of funds requiring the Lake County Council and the Lake County Auditor (collectively, the Council) to provide funding, including raises, for court employees. A Special Judge heard the case, and the parties subsequently agreed to settle the dispute. The Judges requested $223,234.17 in legal fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting the mandate action. The Special Judge ordered the Council to pay the Judges $176,467.17 for their fees and expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the award to the Judges. View "Lake County Council v. Honorable John R. Pera" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court terminated the disciplinary proceedings relating to the circumstances giving rise to this judicial misconduct case, holding that continued litigation would be an inefficient use of judicial resources because the court over which Respondent presided no longer existed and because Respondent consented to a prohibition on future judicial service.The Supreme Court, however, wrote in order to clarify municipal courts’ power to administer infraction cases and infraction deferral agreements and to caution judicial officers on the impropriety of assuming the prosecutor’s duties. The Court then held (1) municipal courts’ status as “special courts” does not absolve them of the duties of a separate but co-equal branch of government; and (2) municipal court judges must endeavor to maintain, preserve, and protect the independence of Indiana’s judiciary even when administering the lowest-level civil and criminal offenses. View "In re Honorable Geoff L. Robison" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Honorable Ryan D. Johanningsmeier, Judge of the Knox Superior Court 2, engaged in judicial misconduct by his conduct in, and his failure to recuse from, a friend’s traffic-infraction case. Accordingly, the Court reprimanded Judge Johanningsmeier.The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications charged that Judge Johanningsmeier’s actions violated six provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The parties agreed that the appropriate sanction under the circumstances was a public reprimand plus assessing costs of the proceeding against the judge. The Supreme Court agreed and reprimanded Judge Johanningsmeier, assessing costs of the proceeding against the judge. View "In re Honorable Ryan D. Johanningsmeier" on Justia Law