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

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT