Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford accepted a total of $700 in fishing trip sponsorships from USI Consultants and Envoy Inc.
Fellow Judge Peter Foley reported receiving a total of $450 for green fees at three separate golf outings from IndyBar, the St. Joseph County Bar Association and Amy Levander, the executive director of governmental affairs at Krieg DeVault.
A Christmas party, complete with dinner, overnight lodging and parking at Trump Tower in Chicago and valued at $1,000, was gifted to state appeals Judge Melissa May by the Ken Allen Law Office. She said it was a gift from her friend Jodie who is the wife of Ken Allen. The couple lives in Trump Tower in Chicago.
Appeals Judge Elizabeth Tavitas reported accepting two Indy 500 tickets from the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, as well as $500 in personal gifts from friend Kirk Hartley and $150 in meals from the Indiana Judges Association.
These properly disclosed gifts pale when compared to the millions of dollars in trips and gifts that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was accused of accepting and failing to report over several years. But his omissions have brought greater scrutiny to all judges and their annual disclosure forms.
No allegations of non-disclosure have been publicly aired regarding the Statements of Economic Interest that Indiana judges filed for 2024.
But judicial ethics experts say the gifts properly disclosed by the state’s appellate court judges provide an important window into the activities of Indiana’s top-ranking judges and serve to help lawyers and the public make sure judges don’t have a conflict of interest that should cause them to recuse themselves from certain cases.
“I believe anytime that there is transparency and availability of records, that it increases confidence in the judiciary,” said David Sachar, director of the Center for Judicial Ethics at the National Center for State Courts.
Bradford, Foley, May and Tavitas were the only judges among the 15-member Indiana Court of Appeals to report accepting gifts on their 2024 disclosure forms, which are required to be filed annually. The five members of the Indiana Supreme Court did not report accepting any gifts.
The disclosure forms offer an array of other financial information about the judges, including business ownership, stocks or stock options valued at more than $10,000, reimbursements for attending judicial conferences and outside jobs that include everything from serving on the board of the Indianapolis Indians to working as a stagehand at Pink and Taylor Swift concerts.
Delayed access
Accessing the forms is not a quick and easy task.
Unlike the Indiana General Assembly and state’s executive branch, which post their disclosure forms online for all to see, the state’s judiciary requires that a formal request be filed with the state Office of Judicial Administration for each judge’s disclosure form.
The office took more than three weeks to fill The Indiana Lawyer’s request for the disclosure forms of the 20 judges on the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Court of Appeals.
The trend nationally is toward more states posting their judicial disclosure forms online.
As of last year, half of the 48 states that require annual judicial disclosure forms make them available on the internet, according to research by the advocacy group Fix the Court. That’s twice as many as in 2013, and Fix the Court called for more states to join them.
“If the public doesn’t know what type of gifts and free trips a justice has received during the year, or what investments they have, then we can’t be certain a justice is truly unbiased no matter what cases come before them,” Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, said in written remarks when group’s 2024 study was released.
Despite Indiana’s failure to post the reports online, Fix the Court ranked Indiana’s disclosure requirements as “average,” along with 13 other states. Fourteen states, led by California, ranked higher and received a “passable” grade. Nine states were graded as poor and 14 others were “failing.”
Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush said through a spokeswoman that the court’s administrative office is open to considering making the reports available online but that she could not recall fielding a request for such immediate disclosure before The Lawyer’s inquiry.
“Our administrative office is pleased to review the possibilities of making that a reality,” Rush said in a written statement. “Transparency is important to ensure the public understands the work of the courts.”
She said the court has shown a commitment to transparency by “appropriately sharing” public information through online access to court documents, court calendars and webcasting of court hearings.
Bevy of information
Regardless of the mode of access, the judicial disclosure forms provide a bevy of information about the state’s judges.
Regarding gifts, Bradford and May were quick to point out that their gift-givers have not had business before the Indiana Court of Appeals.
May said the Ken Allen Law Office, which paid for the Christmas party she attended, doesn’t handle appeals. But if it ever happened to bring a case before her court she would recuse herself.
Bradford said that neither group that sponsored his fishing trips — engineering and surveying firm USI Consultants nor construction and property management firm Envoy — has had business before the appeals court.
“I value face-to-face relationship building. Fishing trips are one of my favorite ways to relax and spend time with friends,” Bradford said. “There’s no better way to get to know another person really well. It’s especially fun when the fishing is so good you have to hide behind a tree to bait your hook.”
Foley said he was invited to attend the golf outings as part of a leadership and mentorship effort and in exchange the organizations paid his green fees.
In addition to gifts, several judges reported receiving reimbursement for costs associated with attending or speaking at various judicial conferences.
Justice Geoffrey Slaughter was reimbursed $5,435 for attending the Judicial Education Institute Conference, $1,945 for attending the National Civil Justice Institute Conference and $3,349 for attending the Federalist Society Judicial Conference.
Kathryn Dolan, spokeswoman for the Indiana Supreme Court, did not specify where the conferences were held.
Appeals Judge Dana Kenworthy reported a reimbursement of $1,307 for attending the Council of State Governments Adolescent Behavioral Health Policy Academy in Hartford, Connecticut.
She was asked to attend and represent Indiana because she chairs the Youth Justice Oversight Committee, which includes a Behavioral Health Work Group.
Several judges also reported compensation for work outside their roles in the judiciary, where they receive annual pay of $221,024 as a supreme court justice or $214,852 as a state appeals court judge.
Justice Mark Massa, for instance, earned $8,000 as a member of the board of directors for the Indianapolis Indians.
Tavitas, the appeals court judge, made $395 as a stagehand for the Pink and Taylor Swift concerts.
“I was able to experience the behind-the-scenes production and tear down of the stage after the concert,” Tavitas said. “It was very interesting. I love concerts.”
Like several of the judges, she also earned extra money teaching law school.
Appeals Judge Mary DeBoer reported earning $7,600 in 2024 for officiating wedding ceremonies.
Anne Fuchs, communications Director for the Indiana Court of Appeals, said the judges take the disclosure forms very seriously and some report more than is required by the Code of Judicial Conduct.
“Each judge divulges any potential bias so the public can have trust and confidence in their decisions,” Fuchs said.•
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.