Tim Evans

tim.evans@indystar.com

The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday ousted Marion Superior Court Judge Kimberly Brown, only the third Indiana judge to be permanently removed from the bench for misconduct in the past 20 years.

“We conclude that protecting the integrity of the judicial system and ensuring the fair and timely administration of justice require that (Brown) be removed from office,” the Supreme Court said in an order. “This removal renders (Brown) ineligible for judicial office.”

Brown is the first Indiana judge to be permanently removed since 2004.

The disciplinary decision in Brown’s case cannot be appealed, and the court did not place any time limits on Brown’s ineligibility to serve as a judge. That means she is, effectively, permanently barred from holding judicial office.

The court did not suspend Brown’s law license, and she will be able to work as an attorney.

“Unfortunately, we seldom read stories about all the excellent judges in the state,” said Joel Schumm, a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis who has closely followed Brown’s disciplinary case.

“I hope people realize that Judge Brown’s misconduct was unusual and can take some comfort in the court’s decision to promptly remove her from the bench.”

Brown has been on a paid suspension since Jan. 9 and has filed to run in the Democratic primary in May for the party’s nomination to seek re-election. The party has slated another candidate for her post. Whether Brown’s name would remain on the primary ballot was unclear Tuesday.

The judge’s attorney, Karl Mulvaney, did not respond to phone and email messages from The Indianapolis Star seeking reaction to the Supreme Court order.

Brown was suspended after a three-judge “masters” panel, which heard evidence on the misconduct allegations, called for her to be permanently removed from the bench. The panel heard testimony during a weeklong trial in November.

Brown, in the final year of her first term on the bench, was charged in August by the state Commission on Judicial Qualifications with 47 counts of misconduct. The commission said she delayed the release of at least nine defendants from jail, failed to train or supervise court employees, created a hostile environment for staff and attorneys, and failed to cooperate with the commission’s investigation.

Brown argued that she was saddled with a bad staff and had taken steps to correct many of the issues cited by the commission. Later, however, she offered a belated apology and offered to accept a 60-day suspension. Retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Sullivan also submitted a letter to the court offering to serve as a mentor to Brown if she were allowed to return to the bench.

All five Supreme Court justices concurred with the decision to bar Brown from judicial office, but Justice Robert Rucker argued in a separate opinion that the court’s goal of preserving the integrity of the judicial system could be achieved by suspending Brown for 60 days without pay, then staying her removal for one year, during which she would be on supervised probation. He noted the charges against Brown did not involve “acts of moral depravity,” and neither the court nor the commission found that she had engaged in “willful misconduct in office.”

During the probationary period, Rucker wrote, “(Brown) would carry the burden of demonstrating that she has the capacity to manage her court efficiently and effectively. A failure to do so would result in a probation violation and immediate removal from office.”

The Supreme Court order noted Brown was not a novice judge and that her misconduct occurred as part of her official duties.

“It violated multiple Rules of Judicial Conduct, and much of it prejudiced the administration of justice. It was not singular, isolated, or limited to a particular subset of cases or persons. It was often repeated or continuing in nature.

“This misconduct not only displayed a lack of dignity, courtesy and patience required of judges, but it also negatively affected parties, court staff and others interested in the efficient operation of the criminal justice system,” the order said.

Schumm, the IU law professor, said that passage stood out to him.

“Judge Brown did not dispute she committed multiple ethical violations,” he said. “The Indiana Supreme Court appropriately noted that these violations were repeated and pervasive, affecting many people and cases. In order to preserve even minimal effectiveness of the judicial system and protect its integrity, the court had no choice but to remove Judge Brown from the bench.”

The Supreme Court order noted that Brown’s “pattern of neglect, hostility, retaliation and recalcitrance toward investigating officials indicates an unwillingness or inability on her part to remedy deficiencies.”

The last judge to be removed by the Supreme Court was Lake Superior Court Judge Joan Kouros in 2004. The court found she “proved either unable or unwilling to issue timely and documented decisions in the cases assigned to her.”

Call Star reporter Tim Evans at (317) 444-6204. Follow him on Twitter: @starwatchtim.