ILNews

Justices suspend former judge for misconduct

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has suspended a northwest Indiana attorney for helping a litigant whose cases he’d presided over more than a decade ago when he was a Jasper Superior judge.

Earlier this week, the state’s highest court issued a 30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement for Rensselaer lawyer Robert V. Monfort, who had served on the Jasper Superior 2 bench from 1994 until that court closed in 2000. This disciplinary action stems from two criminal drunk driving cases Monfort handled in 1998 for a defendant identified as T.W., in which the judge had convicted and sentenced the man to 365 days behind bars.

In 2009, almost a decade after the Superior court’s closure and Monfort had entered private practice, T.W. contacted the former judge to explore the possibility of having those past convictions vacated. Monfort met with the local prosecutor and when the matter later went to court, T.W. filed a petition that said he was acting pro se. But at a hearing on the petition Monfort sat at the counsel table with T.W. and told the presiding judge that he was not representing the man, but rather was just there to “lay the background for the court.” Later at the hearing, T.W. testified that Monfort’s law office had prepared the petition and that he’d paid for the lawyer’s services.

The Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Commission reached an agreement finding that Monfort had violated three Indiana Professional Conduct Rules – 1.12(a) that prohibits attorneys from representing someone in connection with a matter that the lawyer participated in personally and substantially as a judge without the consent of all parties in the proceeding; 3.3(a)(1) that deals with knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal; and 8.4(c) that prohibits attorneys from engaging in conduct involving deceit or misrepresentation. No aggravators were offered, and the parties agreed the mitigators were that Monfort had no disciplinary history since his admission in 1988, that he expressed remorse, and that he cooperated with the Disciplinary Commission.

“The discipline for Respondent’s misconduct would likely be more severe had this matter been submitted without an agreement,” Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wrote for the unanimous court, not including Justice Steven David who didn’t participate. “However, in light of the Court’s desire to foster resolutions of lawyer disciplinary cases, the Court now APPROVES and orders the agreed discipline.”
Monfort’s month-long suspension begins June 24, according to the order in The Matter of Robert V. Monfort, 37S00-1008-DI-418.

Before opening his criminal and civil general practice as a solo practitioner, Monfort had presided over the short-lived Jasper Superior 2, which was created in 1990. Judge Patricia Riley held that seat until her appointment in 1993 to the Indiana Court of Appeals, and Monfort succeeded her on the bench. But a legislative omnibus spending law passed in 1995 called for closing the court. Monfort sued to keep it open – that case ended up before the state’s Supreme Court and in 2000 the justices held that the legislature has the constitutional authority to abolish a court of general jurisdiction but that it couldn’t be closed before the current presiding judge’s term expired.
 

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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT