ILNews

Allen Circuit judge faces misconduct charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed misconduct charges today against Allen Circuit Judge Thomas Felts, who pleaded guilty last year to drunk driving.

In the notice of formal proceedings and statement of charges, the commission lodges two counts against Judge Felts: that he violated Canons 1A and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and that they avoid impropriety at all times.

The judge was arrested in July following a traffic stop in Indianapolis, and tests later showed his blood alcohol content was 0.19. Judge Felts pleaded guilty in August to a misdemeanor of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. He was sentenced to a 90-day license suspension, one year of probation, alcohol treatment, attendance at an Advocates Against Impaired Driving panel, and $705 in legal costs.

Last year, Judge Felts issued a statement following his guilty plea and accepted full responsibility for what happened.

The judge has 20 days to respond to the commission's charges, though that is not required. The Indiana Supreme Court can appoint a three-judge panel to hold a hearing on the charges; and if no agreement is reached, those special masters would recommend any sanctions to the high court, which has final say on any discipline issued.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT