ILNews

Justices: Judge facing suspension may respond

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior judge facing suspension and a 45-count disciplinary complaint has until Wednesday to respond to the suspension request, the Indiana Supreme Court said in an order issued Friday.

Judge Kimberly Brown faces an array of accusations, including counts that her actions led to at least nine defendants wrongly spending one to 22 days in the Marion County Jail, and that she created “a hostile environment for attorneys, court staff, clerks, and other court officials.”

The Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission filed a verified petition for suspension Aug. 26 asking the Supreme Court to remove Brown from the bench pending proceedings on the complaint.

Friday, justices unanimously ordered that Brown respond to the suspension request by noon Wednesday.

“The Admission and Discipline Rules governing the procedure under which judicial disciplinary matters are adjudicated do not specify whether (Brown) has the right to file a response to a Verified Petition for Interim Suspension and, if so, the time period for doing so,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote for the court in setting the deadline.

Brown continued to hear cases on the bench as of Thursday, and did not respond to a message seeking comment. She is represented by Indianapolis attorney Aaron Haith of Choate & Haith. A firm representative responding to inquiries said Thursday there would be no immediate comment.

According to Friday’s order, no attorney had yet entered an appearance on Brown’s behalf in her disciplinary matter. Brown “is reminded that if she intends for counsel to file a response on her behalf to the Commission’s Verified Petition for Interim Suspension, then counsel must enter a valid appearance before or contemporaneously with the filing of her response,” Dickson wrote.  

Brown hears a docket of misdemeanor and Class D felony domestic battery cases in Marion Superior Criminal Court 7.
 

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