Question: Can Judges Go To Jail & Get Suspended From The Practice Of Law?
Answer: Yes! Here Is A Local Example.
From January 2000 to December 2003, Respondent, Deborah Riga, served as Schererville Town Court Judge, where she heard cases involving traffic, minor drug and alcohol offenses, and small claims. There were instances in each of these programs relating to how the money was received and either not properly paid to the Town or paid to a party in violation of federal law and professional rules of conduct/judicial conduct canons. Respondent was charged in 2004, with several federal crimes based on actions while she served as a town judge. In 2006, the court accepted Respondent’s guilty plea to 4 counts of “Mail Fraud for the Purpose of Executing a Scheme and Artifice to Defraud, Aiding and Abetting.” The district court sentenced her to concurrent 15–month sentences on each of the 4 counts, ordered her to pay restitution of $5,770.39 to the Town, and $6,350 to the State of Indiana–Lake County, and dismissed the remaining charges. Based on these convictions, the Court entered an order of interim suspension which is still in effect.
The parties cite the following facts in aggravation: (1) Respondent’s conduct demonstrates a dishonest and selfish motive in using her position as a judicial officer to engineer a scheme to profit above and beyond her judicial salary directly from the defendants who appeared before her; (2) Respondent’s misconduct demonstrated a pattern of misconduct by her repeated actions over several years; (3) the defendants who participated in Respondent’s driving and drug programs were particularly vulnerable, essentially having no choice whether or not to participate in Respondent’s corrupt scheme.
The parties cite the following facts in mitigation: (1) Respondent has no prior discipline; (2) Respondent has cooperated with the Commission’s investigation; (3) Respondent has paid the restitution ordered; (4) other penalties have been imposed upon Respondent for her misconduct, including a felony conviction and imprisonment; (5) Respondent volunteers a significant amount of time to organizations dedicated to philanthropic endeavors; (6) there has been extensive delay in these disciplinary proceedings, none of which is attributable to Respondent.
Violations: The parties agree that Respondent violated the following rules:
Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b): “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.”
Ind. Judicial Conduct Canons (2003): 2A: “A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” 2B: “A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge….” 4A(1) and (3): “A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extra-judicial activities so that they do not: (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; …(3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.” 4D(1)(a) and (c): “A judge shall not engage in financial or business dealings that: (a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial position; … (c) tend to reflect adversely on impartiality or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.”
For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than 5 years without automatic reinstatement, effective immediately. Respondent shall fulfill all the continuing duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). At the conclusion of the minimum period of suspension, Respondent may petition this Court for reinstatement to the practice of law in this state, provided Respondent pays the costs of this proceeding, fulfills the duties of a suspended attorney, and satisfies the requirements for reinstatement of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4) and (18). Approval of a petition for reinstatement is discretionary and may be granted only if Respondent could meet the most stringent burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence all the requirements of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4)(b), including without limitation that Respondent can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence; and that Respondent is genuinely remorseful for his/her misconduct. All Justices concur. 5 N.E.3d 1163