ILNews

Senior judge accused of misconduct

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has filed five charges against a senior judge and former LaPorte Superior Court judge, alleging he violated ethics rules while serving as an elected judge.

According to charges filed today, in 2001, Senior Judge Walter P. Chapala suspended 18 years of a 20-year sentence of a defendant in exchange for a $100,000 donation to two court programs from the defendant's father.

The second allegation stems from a 2004 case in which the judge, while presiding over the criminal case of his daughter-in-law's nephew, ordered the nephew released from a "hold" in Michigan relating to felony charges he faced in that state. After the LaPorte County Sheriff's Department lawfully returned the nephew to Michigan authorities, Senior Judge Chapala began contempt proceedings against the sheriff of LaPorte County. He dismissed the contempt only after the sheriff apologized to the judge. Despite the judge's relationship with the nephew, he continued to preside over the case.

In the five counts filed against the senior judge, he's accused of violating Cannons 1A and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to uphold the integrity of the judicial office; Cannon 2B, which prohibits a judge from lending the prestige of the office to advance their own private interests or of others, and prohibits a judge from allowing family or other relationships to influence a judge's judicial conduct; Canon 3B(2), which requires judges to be faithful to the law and not be swayed by partisan interests; Canon 3B(8), which prohibits ex parte contacts; Canon 3B(9), which requires judges to dispose of all judicial matters fairly; and Canon 3E(1), which requires judges to disqualify themselves from proceedings when their impartiality may be questioned.

The counts also allege Senior Judge Chapala committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and willful misconduct in office.

Bingham McHale attorney Kevin P. McGoff, who is representing Senior Judge Chapala, declined to discuss the charges, saying he just received them today. The judge has confidence in the process and he'll want to see it through, McGoff said.

Senior Judge Chapala took the bench in 1991 and became a senior judge in 2005. According to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, he was admitted to practice in 1970. The senior judge has 20 days to file an answer to the charges and upon his filing, three masters will be appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court to conduct a public hearing on the charges.

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT