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.”



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.