ILNews

Embattled judge sorry, proposes 60-day suspension

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion Superior Judge Kimberly Brown is apologizing for alleged judicial misconduct that resulted in 47 disciplinary counts against her, proposing to the Indiana Supreme Court that she be suspended for two months. She also says her prior defense, including refusing to take a deposition oath, was “ill-advised.”

“Judge Brown is sorry and apologizes to the (Judicial Qualifications) Commission, the Court and the people of Indiana for her conduct which was prejudicial to the administration of justice and a violation of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, and asks that a suspension of sixty (60) days be imposed, consistent with prior judicial discipline cases,” according to a filing on Brown’s behalf.

Brown filed a submission to discipline in lieu of submission of findings Wednesday that said she admits to the disciplinary violations in most cases and accepts responsibility for delayed releases of defendants, failure to properly administer cases and hostile treatment of court staff and attorneys.

“Though inexcusable, Judge Brown assures the Court, Commission and the public that none of her actions, or failures to act, in connection with the failure to timely rule on certain matters was intentional,” the brief says.

Brown also submitted an affidavit in which she says she tried to address disciplinary matters after the commission contacted her and expresses regret for the way she is alleged to have behaved toward officers of the court and staff.

“In connection with the allegations of inappropriate demeanor, this action has caused me to engage in careful introspection,” Brown says in the affidavit. “I apologize for any thoughtless, or less than caring statements made, and pledge to conduct myself and the court with the utmost professionalism at all times.”

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said the justices will determine what the proper punishment should be in Brown’s case. The JQC previously recommended Brown be removed from office.

Brown’s eight-day-long hearing before a panel of three special masters is believed to be the longest such case on record. Brown was represented by attorneys Aaron Haith and Belle Choate during those hearing but her filing Wednesday was accompanied by the appearance of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP partner Karl Mulvaney.

Brown “recognizes that some aspects of her defense were ill-advised, such as her refusal to take the oath when testifying in depositions,” according to the brief prepared by Mulvaney. “She has also retained new counsel to assist with her decision to present this Submission to Discipline and not to submit findings to specifically dispute the facts and charges.”

Brown “believes it is not useful to even attempt to rebut facts and arguments she believes are not well taken by the Commission where it is clear her conduct, and the conduct of the courts for which she was responsible, amounted to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice,” the filing says.

Former Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. also submitted an affidavit in support of Brown’s motion. Sullivan said he’s known Brown since 2007 and worked with her as an early adopter in implementing the Odyssey Case Management System in the Marion County Small Claims Court in Washington Township.

Sullivan wrote that he was disappointed and saddened by the charges against Brown. “I believe the events surrounding the charges against Judge Brown are the result of a series of unfortunate events and circumstances,” Sullivan says in the affidavit.

The former justice said he’s talked with Brown and counseled her on the need for professionalism and civility. “She advises that she has taken the charges in this regard to heart and that the investigation in this case … caused her to become a better judge.”

Sullivan wrote he offered to mentor Brown and visit her court monthly for a probationary period and report whether Brown is “fulfilling her pledge to maintain a high state of court efficiency and professionalism.”

In support of her argument for a 60-day suspension, Brown cites three prior judicial discipline cases she says are comparable and resulted in that punishment: In re Hawkins, 902 N.E.2d 231 (Ind. 2009), In re Kouras, 816 N.E.2d 21 (Ind. 2004) and In re Danikolas, 838 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. 2005).
 

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