There's More than Corn in Indiana

There’s lawyers, guns, and White Castle too.

By now, you’ve probably heard about the three Indiana judges who were suspended after a night on the town turned violent. This story has quickly migrated from legal circles to general media.

Needless to say, public drunkenness is frowned upon if you are a member of the judiciary, but just being drunk, by itself, isn’t likely going to result in discipline for a lawyer or a judge unless it goes sideways too. (At least not in Wisconsin. I can’t speak for Indiana.) A little revelry at a sporting event or wedding, or perhaps a wine tasting hosted by a professional association at a post-conference field trip where you have a few real glasses instead of the maybe a few tasting glasses you thought you were going to have…hypothetically of course…is generally tolerated.

But criminal conduct can be a violation of both the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Judicial Code in every state, and drunk and stupid just piles on. That said, not all criminal conduct in Wisconsin will result in discipline. Wisconsin may be unique among jurisdictions that there has to be some nexus between the conduct and the practice of law for discipline to follow—it has to reflect adversely on one’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects (whereas in some states any felony conviction, regardless of the facts and circumstances giving rise to it, can result in revocation, cough cough Michael Cohen). The judicial code is more general (though all judges other than some municipal judges are also licensed lawyers here), but prohibits doing anything, criminal or not, that demeans the judiciary. Also, the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits anyone with a felony conviction from serving in state or local elected office (including judges).

As an aside, I’m not a fan of automatic disbarment or one-size-fits all practice bans; everyone should at least have a shot at redemption. Wisconsin does not have lifetime disbarment, and even though there are often rule petitions aimed at changing that, I think we should keep revocation as it is, with an opportunity to try again after several years. The Supreme Court can still say no.

Anyhow. I’ve been asked, by more than one person, none of whom are lawyers or judges, whether the fact they were attempting to visit a strip club factored into the discipline. Based on my read of the opinion, probably not officially, but anything sex-adjacent is going to be bad optics, even if it’s legal, consensual, and ultimately banal.

For another take, check out my nerd friend Brian Faughnan. (Actually, generally, check out the rest of his blog too. I haven’t done enough homework to determine if he pioneered the ethics-snark genre but he definitely does it justice.)

(And sorry to my midwestern GenX compatriots who now have that tourism jingle in their head.)