Madison Circuit Judge Norrick facing judicial discipline for failure to supervise staff

IL file photo

A Madison County judge is facing judicial discipline charges alleging that he failed to adequately supervise his staff and properly take action in criminal cases, resulting in the dismissal of multiple cases and the improper issuance of an ex parte custody order.

The charges against Madison Circuit Court 5 Judge Scott Norrick were announced Thursday in In the Matter of The Honorable Scott A. Norrick, Judge of Madison Circuit Court, 24S-JD-35.

The four-count Notice of the Institution of Formal Proceedings and Statement of Charges alleges Norrick violated Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 1.2, 2.5(A) and 2.12(A). He has 20 days to file an answer, but he is not required to do so.

Norrick was elected judge of Madison Circuit Court 5 in 2020, and he had previously served as judge of the Edgewood Town Court for 15 years.

While he was still a practicing attorney, Norrick represented Landmark Accounts Inc. When he was elected judge, his son took over the representation.

However, according to the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s filing, the JQC received a complaint in April 2022 alleging Norrick was presiding over cases where his son was counsel and where he had previously served as counsel.

Norrick subsequently submitted a self-report saying he knew presiding over those cases would be a conflict of interest, so he previously took steps to prevent that conflict. That included instructing his staff to transfer any Landmark Accounts matters to the master commissioner/magistrate judge.

Despite that instruction, Norrick’s signature was still placed on orders in Landmark Accounts cases and cases where his son was counsel, according to the JQC.

“Despite his awareness of the conflicts of interest, Respondent did not undertake any efforts to review his staff’s work to ensure that he was promptly and correctly disqualified from the cases or that the cases showed the matters were transferred to another judicial officer,” the commission wrote.

The JQC’s investigation ultimately found Norrick’s signature was on a total of 66 orders across 27 cases in which his son appeared as counsel and Landmark Accounts was a party. Also, MyCase.in.gov listed Norrick as the presiding judicial officer in Landmark Accounts cases, although they had actually been transferred to a magistrate.

Those actions were a violation of Judicial Conduct Rules 1.2, 2.5(A) and 2.12(A), the JQC alleges.

While the commission’s investigation into the Landmark Accounts cases was ongoing, it received another report that there were criminal cases in Norrick’s court with missing case entries and orders. Between Jan. 1, 2021, and March 31, 2023, there were approximately 40 such cases.

In one case, the judge had revoked bond for a defendant charged with failure to register as a sex or violent offender. Court staff initially inputted the order issuing a warrant, but the entry was later withdrawn and the case was never placed back on the docket.

That case was ultimately dismissed because the defendant was not tried in a timely manner under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).

In another case, court staff mistakenly updated the docket on Oct. 9, 2022, to withdraw a warrant. The mistake was not discovered and rectified until Feb. 28, 2023.

Also, there were at least 36 cases where future dates weren’t set even though they remained pending, according to the JQC.

A total of 16 cases were dismissed because the defendants were not tried in a timely manner, the commission wrote. It added in a footnote that another four cases from the prior judge were dismissed for the same reason.

That conduct violated Rules 1.2 and 2.5(A), the commission alleges.

The JQC’s investigation also revealed “a pattern of delays.”

According to the commission, other judges and individuals from the Madison County Prosecutor’s Office told Norrick that his lead criminal court reporter was four to five weeks behind on completing case entries.

“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/order had been made or whether the matter had been scheduled for a future court date,” the JQC wrote.

The commission pointed to seven cases where there was a “significant delay” in the issuance of warrants for Level 6 felony defendants. Delays ranged from 30 days to 16 months.

In one case, Norrick gave his reporter an order for distribution on Nov. 9, 2022, but by the following February, the prosecutor’s office still had not received it. The reporter had to ask the judge for another copy, but she still failed to distribute the order until March.

That failure to supervise violated Rules 1.2, 2.5(A) and 2.12(A), the commission alleges.

The final issue was a custody case that prompted Norrick to submit another self-report.

In his report, Norrick said his staff placed his signature on an order modifying custody without all parties being heard.

In May 2022, Norrick had ordered temporary legal and physical custody between both parties. But on April 12, 2023, one party moved for emergency custody modification.

The same day, an order granting the motion was issued with Norrick’s electronic signature. The order did not comply with Trial Rule 65(B).

The other party filed a motion to correct error, which Norrick granted.

According to the commission, Norrick “indicated that he had not reviewed the April 12, 2023, Order before it was distributed to the parties. Respondent’s court reporter had informed him that an emergency request for hearing had been filed, and he instructed his court reporter to schedule the matter for a hearing.”

“This episode was the second time that an order had been erroneously issued regarding custody of” the same child, the JQC added.

That incident violated Rules 1.2, 2.5(A) and 2.12(A), the JQC alleges.

In a statement provided by his attorney, James Bell of Hoover Hull Turner, Norrick offered an apology:

“I need to apologize to our entire community as I have failed to properly supervise Circuit Court 5 staff and that has resulted in hearings not being set, appearances of a conflict of interest, and has caused cases to be dismissed.

“I fully accept responsibility and the consequences for the administrative errors made in my court and I am cooperating with the Judicial Qualifications Commission to resolve these matters quickly.

“During my tenure, our court has undergone extensive reviews, made significant improvements in internal processes, and I have enhanced the training of my staff. Great strides have been made to prevent administrative errors and ensure that Circuit Court 5 fully serves our county’s citizens.

“Thank you for putting your trust in me as Judge of Circuit Court 5. I remain committed to this wonderful community and to demonstrating full transparency and honesty, so we can better represent the public’s interest.”

Norrick was admitted to the bar in 2004 and has no prior disciplinary history, according to the Roll of Attorneys.