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
      ADVERTISEMENT
      Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
      1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

      2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

      3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

      4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

      5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

      ADVERTISEMENT