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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT