Senior judge permanently banned from judicial service

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Senior Judge Lisa M. Traylor-Wolff, who faced a disciplinary action on charges she had a sexual relationship with a client, is no longer allowed to serve as a judge, the Indiana Supreme Court ordered Tuesday.

Traylor-Wolff and the Judicial Qualifications Commission entered into a settlement agreement that stipulated that the senior judge violated Rule 1.7(a)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules 1.2 and 3.1(C) of the Code of Judicial Conduct when she had an improper romantic relationship with a client while serving as his public defender. At the time, she was also certified to serve as a senior judge.

The justices agreed with the settlement terms which, in addition to the ban from judicial service, include a suspension from practice for one year. All but 45 days of the suspension is conditionally stayed subject to completion of two years of probation, in which Traylor-Wolff must work with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, avoid contact with the client, pay the costs of this proceeding and avoid committing any further violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Traylor-Wolff’s law license will be automatically reinstated as long as she complies with the terms of her probation.

The justices dismissed Count 1 of the JQC’s complaint that alleged Traylor-Wolff violated Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(j), which prohibits a lawyer from having a sexual relationship with a client unless a consensual relationship existed before the client-lawyer relationship began.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  2. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.

  3. maybe if some of the socia workers would treat the foster parents better, they would continue to fostr.

  4. We have been asked to take in a 2 no old baby because mother is in very unstable situation. We want to do this but will need help with expenses such as medical and formula... Do we have to have custody thru court?

  5. Very troubling. A competent public defender is very much the right of every indigent person in the US or the Fifth amendment becomes meaningless. And considering more and more of us are becoming poorer and poorer under this "system," the need for this are greater than ever.... maybe they should study the Federals and see how they manage their program? And here's to thanking all the PD attorneys out there who do a good job.