JQC: Strike Judge Brown’s apology, support from Sullivan in discipline case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion Superior Judge Kimberly Brown’s last-minute apology and vouching from former Indiana Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. should not be considered in her disciplinary case, the Judicial Qualifications Commission argued in a brief filed Thursday.

The JQC argues Brown’s submission to discipline in lieu of findings and Sullivan’s affidavit filed in support should be stricken as untimely and outside the record of her 47-count disciplinary case heard last month by a panel of special masters appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court.

“Many assertions in (Brown’s) affidavit (and Justice Sullivan’s affidavit) were known to (Brown) prior to the evidentiary hearing but not submitted to the Masters,” the commission argued in its response to Brown’s latest filing. “Further, a number of (Brown’s) assertions are in direct conflict with the evidence presented at the hearing,” the JQC’s filing says.

Brown’s contrition isn’t a meaningful acceptance of responsibility, and she has continued to delay rulings, according to the JQC filing. “The Commission submits (Brown’s) latest filing simply is too little, too late.”

The JQC is urging the special masters to recommend the Indiana Supreme Court remove Brown from the bench. Justices ordered the case move on an expedited schedule and asked the masters to file a report by Dec. 30. Brown suggests the masters recommend a 60-day suspension from the bench.

Brown’s 47-count disciplinary hearing before a panel of three special masters is believed to be the longest and most extensive against a judge in the JQC’s history. She is accused of delayed releases of at least nine defendants from the Marion County Jail – in one case for 22 days. She is also accused of a host of rule violations, including failing to properly oversee her court, improperly supervising trials, failing to act on Court of Appeals orders, showing hostility toward parties who came before her, and retaliating against court staff who complained, among other things.

At her hearing, Brown was represented by attorney Aaron Haith of Choate & Haith who attempted to portray the judge as singled out for problems he argued were endemic in the Marion Superior courts.

Before the proceedings, justices alerted counsel that parties should not request continuances or extensions except in emergencies or under extraordinary circumstances. On Nov. 25, Haith requested an extension of time to file proposed findings after the hearing, according to the case docket, which also shows the masters granted his request Dec. 2, extending the deadline to noon that same day. Proposed findings were not filed.

Subsequently, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP partner Karl Mulvaney appeared on Brown’s behalf and filed the submission to discipline in lieu of findings that also contained Sullivan’s affidavit, after which Haith withdrew. The brief Mulvaney filed, and which the commission now objects to, argues elements of Brown’s defense were “ill-advised.”

Sullivan’s affidavit supplemented Brown’s latest filing. He wrote that he was disappointed and saddened by the charges. “I believe the events surrounding the charges against Judge Brown are the result of a series of unfortunate events and circumstances,” he said, noting he 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.”

But the commission in response says that’s not so, and that Brown’s filing is neither a set of proposed findings nor timely filed for the masters to consider.

“These affidavits also put the Commission at a disadvantage, as the Commission has not been given an opportunity to cross-examine (Brown) or former Justice Sullivan on the new matters (Brown) offers.”

The commission brief says Brown “asserts that she ‘has maintained a work schedule where she is usually in the office by 8 a.m. and usually stays until after 5 p.m. to work on her cases’ … and former Justice Sullivan offers a personal and professional character reference.

“The Commission certainly would have cross-examined both witnesses on these matters and confronted them with evidence which discredits these assertions,” the JQC filing says.

At Brown’s hearing, the commission set the tone, opening by admitting into evidence video from her deposition in which the judge defiantly refuses to take an oath, claiming that because she is a judge, she is bound to the truth. The commission brief says such behavior doesn’t instill public confidence.

Brown’s “conduct, demeanor, and tactics during the investigation and proceedings simply do little to assure the citizens of this State that she, indeed, will do better going forward,” the JQC brief says.



    Kudos to Judicial Qualifications Commission attorneys Meiring and Carusillo for a very well written and well argued brief. (link above, do read it to understand this case) I was the subject of a 31 page brief from judicial enforcers that cited not one legal precedent, it is great to see that attorneys working for the Ind S.Ct. can actually brief in a professional and lawyerlike manner. The evidence to remove Judge Kimberly Brown is overwhelming .... but who in the bar would want to litigate against her given the tactics demonstrated and documented? Will she remain an attorney after riding so very roughshod over the very system that attorneys are called to uphold? Very scary that her conduct has been going on for years in Marion County, seemingly with little as to review, and that she was evidently disciplined for similar conduct while in small claims court years ago, but was still promoted and not put on probation. How sad for Indiana that political connections and political correctness seems to have driven the judiciary for the past decades, and that too many times the disciplinary power is either not used (Conour) or used for all the wrong reasons (Ogden). And then there is my five year bar from the Ind bar, while yet in good standing in Kansas (I still am) and fully admitted to the Ind federal courts even after the IBLE slammed me to the ground for my religious views. Much to be fixed in Indiana, but this story does give much hope that the new IND S.Ct. wants to see the problems fixed, even while the old system fights for the likes of Kimberly Brown. (An affidavit from a former S.Ct. justice that the Commission stands prepared to shred in cross examination ... how sad for Indiana) How telling too!

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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?