ILNews

Judge apologizes for remarks some found offensive

 Associated Press
August 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 A northeastern Indiana judge apologized Thursday for saying at a public retirement reception for court staff members that one of the female retirees could have a second career as a phone-sex operator.

Allen Superior Court Judge Stanley Levine used a microphone to make the comment Friday at an event attended by family, friends, co-workers and some children, the Journal Gazette reported.

"First of all, I wanted to state that I have made a sincere and heartfelt apology to the woman about whom I made inappropriate remarks by talking to her personally, and she has accepted my apology," Allen Superior Court Judge Stanley Levine told the newspaper.

He added: "What I quite mistakenly meant to be humorous was, in truth, extremely tasteless. ... I deeply regret having said it."

In an email Wednesday to courthouse staff, the Allen County Board of Judges said they found Levine's comments to be inappropriate and that some people found his comments offensive. The email reminded all courthouse staff that anyone who feels he or she has been harassed has the option to report the conduct.

Kathryn Dolan, the state Supreme Court spokeswoman, said in an email that she couldn't say whether a specific situation violates the Code of Judicial Conduct that requires judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.

"Only the five members of the Supreme Court have the authority to determine what (if any) judicial misconduct has occurred in a specific situation," she wrote.

Levine, appointed to the bench in 1998, is up for re-election this year.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT