Title: In re Honorable Cichowicz

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 23S-JD-33 
 
In the Matter of the Honorable 
Jason A. Cichowicz, Judge of the 
St. Joseph Probate Court, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: August 10, 2023 
Judicial Discipline Action 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Aug 10 2023, 4:05 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JD-33 | August 10, 2023 
Page 2 of 6 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, the Honorable Jason A. Cichowicz, Judge of 
the St. Joseph Probate Court, engaged in judicial misconduct by 
continuing to serve in a fiduciary position for a non-family member after 
taking office, abusing the prestige of his office to benefit a family member, 
and failing to disclose his role as trustee of a charitable foundation from 
which he drew funds to further court improvement projects. 
The matter is before us on the Indiana Commission on Judicial 
Qualifications’ (“Commission’s”) “Notice of the Institution of Formal 
Proceedings and Statement of Charges” against Respondent. The parties 
jointly tendered a “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional 
Agreement for Discipline” stipulating to the following facts. 
Background and Stipulated Facts 
Respondent has been Judge of the St. Joseph Probate Court since 
January 1, 2019. His duties as judge include overseeing the operations of 
the St. Joseph Probate Court Juvenile Justice Center (“JJC”). 
Respondent met and began representing Levering Russell Cartwright 
in 2013 in a marital dissolution matter. Cartwright was 73 years old at the 
time and had two estranged adult children. Cartwright was the 
beneficiary of several valuable family trusts and a self-created trust. He 
was also the sole trustee of the Cartwright Foundation—a 501(c)(3) 
charitable organization created by Cartwright’s father. Cartwright had 
substantial financial assets and income at the time Respondent 
represented him. 
Shortly after beginning his representation, Respondent obtained 
physical custody of Cartwright’s personal checking account checkbook to 
pay Cartwright’s bills upon Cartwright’s request. In 2014, Respondent 
prepared a power of attorney, which Cartwright executed, naming 
Respondent as Cartwright’s attorney-in-fact. The power-of-attorney 
allowed Respondent to buy, sell, and transfer trust property. In 2015, 
Respondent became co-trustee of the Cartwright Foundation. Later that 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JD-33 | August 10, 2023 
Page 3 of 6 
year, Cartwright resigned as co-trustee leaving Respondent as sole trustee 
of the foundation. Also in 2015, Cartwright, represented by independent 
counsel, amended his trust to provide that upon his death, the trust 
residue would be distributed to Respondent, who was also named as 
successor trustee. The trust was amended again in 2018, to provide for 
Respondent’s family in the event Respondent did not survive Cartwright. 
Even after taking office as Judge of the St. Joseph Probate Court, 
Respondent continued to act as Cartwright’s attorney-in-fact, writing 
checks and paying bills on Cartwright’s behalf. In February 2019, 
Respondent attended a meeting of the Friends of the St. Joseph County 
Juvenile Justice Center, a charitable organization created to raise funds for 
and support the JJC. At the meeting, Respondent discussed renovating 
space in the JJC to accommodate a new courtroom using donated funds 
from an undisclosed source. Only newly-elected board member Michael 
Misch knew of Respondent’s intent to use funds from the Cartwright 
Foundation for the project.  
In April, Respondent issued a check drawn from the Cartwright 
Foundation’s bank account in the sum of $100,000 to Misch’s law firm. The 
firm then issued checks amounting to $100,000 to the Friends of the JJC. 
Upon Respondent’s recommendation, the Friends of the JJC contracted 
with McCollough Scholten for the project. No formal bidding process was 
used to procure contractor services. Neither the entirety of the Friends of 
the JJC Board, nor the St. Joseph County Commissioners, were advised of 
the source of funds for the project, or that Respondent served as sole 
trustee of the foundation. 
Meanwhile, during the spring of 2019, Respondent asked his father, 
owner of R&K Ceramic Tile, LLC (“R&K”), if R&K would refurbish 
courthouse breakrooms used by Respondent’s staff. His father agreed and 
funding for the project—approximately $24,800—came from the Friends 
of the JJC upon Respondent’s direction or request. Again, no formal 
bidding process was used to procure the renovation services, and there 
are no known publicly available documents regarding the project. 
In 2020, Respondent made $60,000 in foundation funds available to the 
Friends of the JJC for the purchase of vehicles to be used by the Court 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JD-33 | August 10, 2023 
Page 4 of 6 
Appointed Special Advocate program affiliated with the St. Joseph 
Probate Court. Respondent again wrote a check from the foundation’s 
account to Misch’s law firm, and the firm issued a check to the Friends of 
the JJC. The organization purchased vehicles from Victory Auto, LLC, 
which—like R&K—is owned by Respondent’s father. 
The Commission filed its “Notice of the Institution of Formal 
Proceedings and Statement of Charges” against Respondent on February 
7, 2023. Respondent did not resign as Cartwright’s attorney-in-fact until 
July 31, 2023, shortly after the parties tendered their conditional 
agreement. 
Discussion 
Respondent agrees his conduct violated the following Code of Judicial 
Conduct provisions: 
• Rule 1.2, requiring judges to avoid impropriety and act at all 
times in a manner promoting public confidence in the judiciary’s 
integrity; 
• Rule 1.3, prohibiting a judge from abusing the prestige of judicial 
office to advance the private interests of another; 
• Rule 3.1(C), prohibiting a judge from engaging in extrajudicial 
activities that would appear to a reasonable person to 
undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality; 
and 
• Rule 3.8, prohibiting a judge from serving in a fiduciary position 
unless it is for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the 
judge’s family. 
The parties agree that an appropriate sanction is a 45-day suspension 
without pay plus an assessment of costs against Respondent. Although a 
suspension is a very severe sanction, it is fully warranted here. 
Suspensions longer than 30 days “reflect extremely serious judicial 
misconduct, just shy of what might warrant removal from office.” Matter 
of Freese, 123 N.E.3d 683, 688 (Ind. 2019). Respondent’s misconduct 
permeated his entire 4-year career as probate judge. Further, his act of 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JD-33 | August 10, 2023 
Page 5 of 6 
keeping the source of funds anonymous suggests the misconduct was 
willful, undermining the integrity of the judiciary. 
In Freese, we approved an agreed 45-day suspension for a judge who 
permitted a friend who had recently filed for bankruptcy to serve as 
trustee of a trust and personal representative of a related estate, despite 
the friend’s lack of qualifications. Id. at 685. The estate remained pending 
for years, and the friend eventually absconded to Florida with over 
$500,000 in stolen trust funds. Id. at 687. We concluded that although the 
judge’s misconduct was negligent rather than willful, it enabled a massive 
theft. Id. at 688. Like some of Respondent’s misconduct, we recognized the 
judge’s misconduct brought him no personal benefit or gain. 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. Id. at 687. 
Similarly, we approved a 90-day suspension for a judge who, in part, 
maintained a fiduciary relationship with a former client after assuming 
the bench and used her office to advance the private interests of that 
former client. Matter of Hammond, 559 N.E.2d 310 (Ind. 1990). We have 
further approved suspensions for the appearance of partiality in favor of 
friends or family members. Matter of Funke, 757 N.E.2d 1013 (Ind. 2001) 
(imposing a 15-day suspension); Matter of Jacobi, 715 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. 1999) 
(imposing a 3-day suspension). 
The parties’ proposed 45-day suspension is squarely within the range of 
sanction imposed for similar misconduct. “The purpose of judicial 
discipline is not primarily to punish a judge, but rather to preserve the 
integrity of and public confidence in the judicial system and, when 
necessary, [to] safeguard the bench and public from those who are unfit.” 
In re Hawkins, 902 N.E.2d 231, 244 (Ind. 2009). The sanction must be 
designed to deter similar misconduct and assure the public that judicial 
misconduct will not be condoned. Id. Indeed, the personal statement 
Respondent submitted to this Court stresses he is hopeful his fellow 
judges will learn from his experience. We are as well. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JD-33 | August 10, 2023 
Page 6 of 6 
Conclusion 
Consistent with our August 4, 2023 order in this matter, Jason A. 
Cichowicz shall be suspended from the office of Judge of the St. Joseph 
Probate Court without pay for forty-five (45) days commencing at 12:01 
a.m. on September 5, 2023. The suspension shall terminate and 
Respondent shall automatically be reinstated to office at 12:01 a.m. on 
October 20, 2023. This discipline terminates the disciplinary proceedings 
relating to the circumstances giving rise to this case. Stipulated costs in the 
amount of $3,824.00 have been assessed against Respondent. 
Rush, C.J., and Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur. 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  RES P O N DE N T  
James F. Groves 
South Bend, Indiana 
 
Donald R. Lundberg  
Lundberg Legal 
Port Washington, New York 
 
James J. Bell  
Hoover Hull Turner LLP 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  I ND I A NA C OM MIS SI ON  O N J U DI C IAL  
Q U AL I FI CA TI O NS  
Adrienne L. Meiring, Counsel to the Commission 
Stephanie K. Bibbs, Deputy Director  
Larry D. Newman, Staff Attorney  
Seth T. Pruden, Staff Attorney  
Indianapolis, Indiana