Adrienne Meiring, Executive Director | Disciplinary Commission
From March 2020 through half of 2021, even the most patient souls have been tested: a pandemic, social unrest, and political uncertainty. In such times, there is a temptation to suggest that ethical standards should be relaxed in the name of survival. But challenging times make for creative solutions, and many Indiana judges found innovative ways to move dockets forward while maintaining public safety and trust.
The Good
Competently, Diligently, and Promptly (Code of Judicial Conduct R. 2.5)
With quarantine, social distancing, and maximum capacity limits, judges were faced with how to handle cases efficiently, promptly, and competently when bringing large numbers of people into the courtroom was not an option. Many Indiana judges solved that dilemma by holding remote proceedings through video conferencing platforms, with Warren Circuit Court Judge Hunter Reece being the first.
Vanderburgh Superior Court Judge Leslie Shively took a different but effective approach, working with county officials to move high-volume courts to a nearby convention center. In that location, there was adequate spacing to hold in-person, socially-distanced, safe proceedings.
Promoting Public Confidence in the Judiciary (Code of Judicial Conduct R. 1.2)
Personally impacted by COVID-19, Shelby Superior Court Judge David Riggins did not want others to experience what he did. Armed with an apparatus reminiscent of a Ghostbuster, Judge Riggins worked to bust transmission of the virus by disinfecting the entire courtroom each day. Court staff then sanitized common-touch surfaces by hand at least twice a day.
Recognizing the importance of legally uniting children with their forever families, Lawrence Circuit Court Judge Nathan Nikirk tried to keep the celebratory atmosphere for adoptions, even when proceedings had to be held remotely. For uncontested adoptions, he allowed as many people who wanted to attend the final hearing remotely—with over 50 family members and friends watching one child’s adoption hearing. He then followed up by sending kids a small gavel and personal letter to thank them for allowing him to be part of their big day.
Without Bias (Code of Judicial Conduct R. 2.3)
As the nation was rocked with questions about equity for persons of color, Chief Justice Loretta Rush issued a “Statement on Race and Equity” on June 5, 2020, recognizing that there “is a disconnect between what we aspire for in our justice system and what we have achieved,” calling for members of the judiciary to take action to “change that experience—not justify, ignore, or disparage it.”
Judges throughout the state answered that call, working with community leaders to conduct public forums to address race and equity issues in the court system.
Some examples include Bartholomew Circuit Court Judge Kelly Benjamin’s organization of one such forum in her local community. She continues her work to implement changes based on the information she received. Madison Circuit and Superior Court judges collaborated with local leaders to conduct a virtual public forum to discuss race, equity, and justice. As a result, the Madison County Unified Court System adopted mandatory implicit bias training for all judges and court employees.
The Bad
Locally and nationally, many judges demonstrated the judiciary’s ingenuity and its ability, even during a crisis, to adhere to the aspirational goals and directives of the Code of Judicial Conduct, but there were those outliers who required disciplinary action. Two judges in other states were admonished for refusing to adhere to mandated COVID-19 safety protocols. Order, AZ, 20-333, May 13, 2021; Hinson, TN, Dec. 15, 2020. Another judge was disqualified from two criminal cases by the state’s chief justice because the judge failed to prove that he had taken steps to protect individuals in his courtroom or “articulate the necessity of proceeding with jury trials during a dangerous stage of a pandemic.” In re Disqualification of Fleegle, Order, 161 Ohio St.3d 1263 (2021).
Three judges were sanctioned for discouraging or mocking attorneys who wanted to appear in court remotely due to the pandemic. See In the Matter Concerning Connolly, Decision and Order, CA, April 2, 2021; In re Burchett, Stipulation and Agreement for Reprimand, WA, April 23, 2021; Order of Private Reprimand, KY, June 14, 2021. In one instance, media later reported that the disciplined judge had told attorneys who were concerned about COVID-19 that they could “wear scuba gear to court” (The Courier-Journal, June 24, 2021).
The Disappointing
Two judges were disciplined for disparaging remarks they made in court about the chief justice and his handling of the pandemic. One judge was reprimanded for, among other things, commenting that he wished the chief justice “would win an award so that the COVID-19 mandates” would end. Hinson, TN, Dec. 15, 2020. Another judge was reprimanded for stating to a court audience, “the Grand Wizard of our Supreme Court said we have to wear these masks.” Ledsinger, TN, Sept. 28, 2020.
Overall, when evaluating ethics during the pandemic, there were some bad moments, even some disappointing ones, but mostly, the judiciary showed it was worthy of public confidence in a crisis. As the late American novelist James Lane Allen once remarked, “Adversity does not build character, it reveals it.”
