Indiana Supreme Court suspends Madison Circuit judge for judicial misconduct
Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A Madison Circuit Court judge’s repeated poor management practices, including missing entries and orders that led to the dismissal of 16 criminal cases, has drawn him a scathing rebuke and lengthy suspension from the state’s highest court.
The Indiana Supreme Court suspended Judge Scott Norrick 45 days without pay Friday after an Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications investigation uncovered dozens of examples of judicial misconduct committed over a period of more than two years.
Norrick’s suspension begins June 3 and ends July 18.
In its opinion, the high court noted that Norrick engaged in judicial misconduct by: failing to supervise his staff in the processing of orders, which resulted in him presiding over civil cases in which he or his son were the attorneys of record; erroneously issuing an ex parte change-of-custody order without giving the opposing party notice or an opportunity to respond; and failing to supervise his staff in the processing of criminal cases, which led to delays in issuing warrants, missing orders and chronological case summary entries, and involuntarily dismissing 16 criminal cases.
“Respondent’s actions and inactions, which began the day he assumed office, damaged the administration of justice and public trust in the judiciary,” the high court’s opinion stated. “They also caused individual harm to dozens of alleged victims, witnesses, and criminal defendants whose cases were dismissed or delayed because Respondent, through his staff, failed to update warrants, set trial dates, and reflect the outcome of hearings. Perhaps most alarming, these omissions were repeatedly brought to Respondent’s attention but he took no action until the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications (“Commission”) began to investigate,”
Norrick was elected judge of the Madison Circuit Court 5 in November 2020 and took office on Jan. 1, 2021. The state’s high court said the misconduct began the day Norrick took office and continued through at least March 31, 2023.
A key finding in the opinion involved Norrick’s conflict-of-interest regarding Landmark Accounts Inc.
Before Norrick’s election, he was judge of Edgewood Town Court for about 15 years, where he supervised three staff members.
During this time, Norrick represented client Landmark Accounts, Inc. in small claims matters.
After Norrick’s son, Devin, was admitted to the bar in September 2020, he began practicing in Norrick’s Anderson-based firm.
And when Judge Norrick took the bench in January 2021, his son took over representing Landmark Accounts.
In April 2022, the commission received a complaint that Norrick was presiding over cases in which his son served as counsel and in which Norrick had previously served as counsel.
Two months later, Norrick tendered a self-report that acknowledged presiding over the Landmark Accounts cases and admitted the measures he had undertaken to prevent that from happening had resulted in “errors by his court staff.”
From Jan. 20, 2021, to April 13, 2022, Norrick presided over 27 cases in which his son appeared as counsel and Landmark Accounts was a party.
He issued 66 signature-stamped orders in those cases, including orders granting the withdrawal of his own appearance as Landmark Accounts’ attorney.
MyCase listed Norrick as the judicial officer in multiple Landmark Accounts cases, even though a magistrate actually heard those cases.
Norrick admitted he failed to adequately supervise his staff in handling the Landmark Accounts cases, which led to the public perception that he was presiding over cases in which he had previously been counsel of record or his son was counsel of record.
Prompted by the Landmark Accounts reports, the commission issued a notice of investigation in January 2023.
While this investigation was ongoing, the commission received a report that there were criminal cases in Norrick’s court with missing case entries and orders, and so in April 2023, the commission amended its notice of investigation.
The investigation found that from Jan.1, 2021, to March 31, 2023, there were about 40 criminal cases with missing entries and orders.
These missing items included: failure to update warrants accurately; failure to set jury trial dates; failure to reflect what took place at certain hearings; and failure to state whether future hearing dates were needed.
These missing entries and orders led to the dismissal of 16 cases because the defendants were not timely tried under Criminal Rule 4(C), the state’s high court said.
The commission identified at least seven cases in which there was a significant delay in issuing a warrant, with delays ranging from 30 days to 16 months.
These delays all involved Level 6 felonies, including charges of battery against a public safety official, domestic battery, strangulation, auto theft, neglect of a dependent, possession of methamphetamine, and residential entry.
“Despite being on notice of these concerns, for two years Respondent failed to undertake any efforts to review criminal cases, including whether an appropriate entry or order had been made or whether the matter had been scheduled for a future court date,” according to the Supreme Court’s per curiam opinion.
The court also cited Norrick for erroneously stamping custody orders in Matter of H.M, a custody dispute.
Norrick agreed his conduct violated the following Code of Judicial Conduct provisions:
• Rule 1.2, requiring judges to avoid impropriety and act at all times in a manner promoting public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity;
• Rule 2.5(A), requiring judges to perform judicial and administrative duties competently, diligently, and promptly; and
• Rule 2.12(A), requiring judges to supervise court staff to act in a manner consistent with the judge’s obligations under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The opinion pointed out that suspensions longer than 30 days “reflect extremely serious judicial misconduct, just shy of what might warrant removal from office,” with the court citing Matter of Freese, 123 N.E.3d 683, 688 (Ind. 2019).
“We are troubled by the extent of this misconduct, particularly given Respondent’s prior discipline on failure-to-supervise issues and his fifteen years of experience as a town court judge. Respondent has agreed to complete additional judicial education and meet with a mentor judge to support him in handling the court’s caseload and supervising court staff,” the opinion concluded.
All justices concurred in the opinion except Justice Geoffrey Slaughter, who felt more severe discipline was warranted.
The case is In the Matter of the Honorable Scott A. Norrick, Judge of the Madison Circuit Court.