ILNews

JQC files charge against St. Joseph Judge Peter Nemeth

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

St. Joseph Probate Judge Peter Nemeth’s comments in denying an interpreter for an 18-year-old deaf person who was the subject of a guardianship proceeding have resulted in disciplinary charges filed by the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission.

Nemeth is alleged to have made derogatory comments suggesting that it was inappropriate that the litigant request that “the taxpayers pay for” an interpreter when the she “hadn’t paid taxes for several years,” according to a statement from the commission. Nemeth denied the request and ordered the litigant to provide a deaf interpreter for the permanent guardianship hearing, but later revised the order after the litigant brought the relevant portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act to the court office, according to the statement.

The commission announced a notice of the institution of formal proceedings and statement of charges against Nemeth that allege the statements made during hearings in March and May 2011 violated the following rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct:

  •  Rule 1.2, which requires judges to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary;
  •  Rule 2.2, which requires judges to perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially;
  •  Rule 2.3(B), which requires judges to not act, in the performance of judicial duties, in a manner that manifests bias or prejudice; and,
  •  Rule 2.8(b), which requires judges to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants.

The commission also claims he engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Nemeth has served as the judge of St. Joseph Probate Court since 1993 and has been a member of the Indiana bar since 1966. Nemeth may file an answer to the charges with the Indiana Supreme Court within 20 days of receiving notice of the charges. The Indiana Supreme Court then will appoint three judges as masters to conduct a public hearing.

The Indiana Supreme Court has final authority for judicial discipline. The court can dismiss the charges or impose sanctions ranging from a reprimand to a permanent ban on holding a judicial office in Indiana.

Nemeth’s term ends this year and he is not seeking re-election.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • pretextual
    there is nothing here that suggests insult to the deaf person. if he said the foster parent hadnt paid taxes and it was true then so what. the interpreter was provided, no harm no foul. this complaint is most likely pretextual of some unrelated political rivalry and we all know that it probably has nothing to do with deaf and disabled anything. as for insults you insulted me, but thats ok. I am not the one who gets all heated up over offhand comments. people can have an opinion and we dont all need to wet the bed over it.
  • @John
    No, you're stupid. That Deaf son has feeling. I'm sure he felt hurt that the judge insulted him. Her foster mother not paying taxes has nothing to do with him. The judge violated rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct. I know several other judges have insulted Deaf litigants.
    • Correction
      Excuse me, I should have written title VI for limited English litigants, and title II for ADA protections for the deaf.
    • Justified and correct
      I have seen more than one judge belittle deaf litigants and give them a hard time about interpreters when the court is legally required to provide them at no cost, usually because they accept some federal funds and Title VII requires it. Why should disabled or limited English people first have to suffer some sort of humiliating verbal abuse before the judge follows his/her responsibilities and appoints an interpreter?
    • frivolous
      This complaint is stupid. I dont see where the beef is if the interpreter was actually appointed. No harm done. Somebody's trying to shame a judge for an off the cuff remark that is probably true?

      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