ILNews

Embattled judge responds to suspension bid: ‘can and will learn’ from mistakes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior judge facing a 45-count disciplinary complaint responded today to a petition for her suspension by saying, “She is resolute that she can and will learn from what has been alleged, and that she will redouble her efforts to proceed.”

Judge Kimberly Brown’s response was filed before a Supreme Court-imposed noon deadline today to answer a verified petition for suspension on multiple allegations. Brown is accused of a litany of charges, including that her actions led to the delayed release of at least nine defendants who wrongly spent 1 to 22 days in jail, and that she created “a hostile environment for attorneys, court staff, clerks, and other court officials.”

The Judicial Qualifications Commission on Aug. 26 issued a verified petition for suspension, alleging those violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and also accusing Brown of failing to properly supervise staff and court officers. Brown also is charged with improperly converting jury trials to bench trials and causing needless delays.

Brown’s response and a further detailed memorandum prepared by Indianapolis attorney Aaron Haith strikes a contrite, conciliatory and corrective tone and asks the justices to deny the petition for suspension and allow her to continue to preside “until an adjudication of all issues is reached.” No proceedings before the JQC had been scheduled as of today.   

“Judge Brown states that it has never been her intent to knowingly fail to oversee and train her staff. Judge Brown recognizes that it is her responsibility to be certain the staff performs in a fair and reasonable manner and to the best of their abilities,” the response says.

Brown specifically denies one of 10 generalized areas of complaints against her: that she retaliated against and fired a court employee she believed had filed or was planning to file an ethics complaint against her. “Judge Brown submits that she has not done this in the past nor will she do this in the future,” the response says.

Among the most damning allegations against Brown are charges that her failure to properly document and follow through with court orders resulted in the improper jailing of nine defendants on misdemeanor charges – one for 22 days, another for 17 days. Brown responds that she is determined “to address every concern stated by the Commission and accept responsibility and correct any problems or omissions that have been made.”

Brown sought in the memorandum to distinguish her case from prior judicial discipline cases that involved suspension of one judge and removal of another.

 “Contrary to the arguments of the Commission, (Brown) does not present a similar issue of court management as was addressed by the Court in Matter of Hawkins, 902 N.E.2d 231 (Ind. 2009),” the response says, referring to a divided opinion in which Marion Superior Judge Grant Hawkins was suspended for 60 days.

“The delays caused by (Brown) and her staff are not the result of a lack of internal management systems aimed at addressing the specific problem, though the system may have proven to be inadequate. The fact that delayed releases continue within the court system, including (Brown’s court), is most discouraging and requires additional concern.”

“Judge Brown’s conduct thus far is not one of a persistent failure to perform judicial duties over a long period of time as was found in Matter of Kouros, 816 N.E.2d 21 (Ind. 2002),” the memorandum says, referring to the removal of twice-suspended Lake Superior Judge Joan Kouros for a number of administrative failings.

Brown’s response makes repeated assertions that corrective action has been taken in regard to allegations or that she is working with court staff to implement changes.  

“While (Brown) can understand that some may perceive her actions as hostile, she feels she is level handed in her treatment of all persons she works with and those who appear before her whether a litigant or party,” the response memorandum says. “She nonetheless believes that while she has been cooperative with counsel and fellow judges, she can and will always strive to be better.”


 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT