Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
One week after issuing an order suspending St. Joseph Probate Judge Jason A. Cichowicz for 45 days, the Indiana Supreme Court has issued an opinion explaining its rationale, writing that the judge’s misconduct seemed to be “willful.”
The justices handed down a provisional order Aug. 4 announcing Cichowicz’s 45-day suspension effective Sept. 5, without pay but with automatic reinstatement effective Oct. 20. They then issued a six-page opinion Thursday explaining the suspension.
As detailed in a Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline, Cichowicz and the Judicial Qualifications Commission agreed that the judge violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 3.1(C) and 3.8 of the Code of Judicial Conduct in his dealings with a man named Levering Russell Cartwright and his role as trustee of Cartwright’s foundation.
Cichowicz became Cartwright’s power of attorney before taking the bench, then remained in that role after being elected in 2018. He had also become the sole trustee of Cartwright’s foundation before being elected, then used that position to make anonymous donations totaling about $160,000 to fund renovation projects at the county’s juvenile justice center and to purchase vehicles to support the county’s court-appointed special advocate program.
One of the renovation projects and the purchase of the vehicles went through businesses owned by the judge’s father.
In a personal statement filed Aug. 4, Cichowicz underscored the fact that no taxpayer money was expended for the renovations or vehicle purchases. He also said he had done research after his election and determined that it would not be unethical to continue serving as Cartwright’s POA.
According to Cichowicz, it “never occurred to him” that his actions would be considered ethical violations.
For his part, Cartwright penned a letter blasting the disciplinary process and saying Cichowicz had been “bullied.”
In their per curiam opinion, the justices took a different view of the facts.
“Respondent’s misconduct permeated his entire 4-year career as probate judge,” the opinion says. “Further, his act of keeping the source of funds anonymous suggests the misconduct was willful, undermining the integrity of the judiciary.”
The high court compared Cichowicz’s case to Matter of Freese, 123 N.E.3d 683 (Ind. 2019).
“Like some of Respondent’s misconduct, we recognized the judge’s misconduct (in Freese) brought him no personal benefit or gain,” the justices wrote. “But the judge in Freese had a lengthy and distinguished judicial career unblemished by previous discipline, while Respondent’s misconduct began as soon as he assumed judicial office.
“… (T)he personal statement Respondent submitted to this Court stresses he is hopeful his fellow judges will learn from his experience,” the court concluded. “We are as well.”
All justices concurred in In the Matter of the Honorable Jason A. Cichowicz, Judge of the St. Joseph Probate Court, 23S-JD-33.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.