I N T H E

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 24S-JD-35

In the Matter of the Honorable

Scott A. Norrick, Judge of the

Madison Circuit Court,

Respondent.

Decided: May 17, 2024

Judicial Discipline Action

Per Curiam Opinion

Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Goff, and Molter concur. 

Justice Slaughter dissents.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-JD-35 | May 17, 2024 Page 2 of 11

Per curiam.

"The United States legal system is based upon the principle that an 

independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of men and 

women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that governs our 

society.” Preamble, Ind. Code of Judicial Conduct. Inherent in the judicial 

conduct rules are the principles that judges “must respect and honor the 

judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance 

confidence in the legal system.” Id.

Respondent, the Honorable Scott A. Norrick, Judge of the Madison 

Circuit Court, has fallen far short of these standards. Respondent engaged 

in judicial misconduct by: (1) failing to supervise his staff in the 

processing of orders, which resulted in him presiding over civil cases in 

which he or his son were the attorneys of record; (2) erroneously issuing 

an ex parte change-of-custody order without giving the opposing party

notice or an opportunity to respond; and (3) failing to supervise his staff in 

the processing of criminal cases, which led to delays in issuing warrants, 

missing orders and chronological case summary (“CCS”) entries, and 

involuntarily dismissing sixteen criminal cases. 

Respondent’s actions and inactions, which began the day he assumed 

office, damaged the administration of justice and public trust in the 

judiciary. They also caused individual harm to dozens of alleged victims, 

witnesses, and criminal defendants whose cases were dismissed or 

delayed because Respondent, through his staff, failed to update warrants, 

set trial dates, and reflect the outcome of hearings. Perhaps most alarming,

these omissions were repeatedly brought to Respondent’s attention but he 

took no action until the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications 

(“Commission”) began to investigate. 

The matter is before us on the 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.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-JD-35 | May 17, 2024 Page 3 of 11

Background and Stipulated Facts

Respondent was elected judge of the Madison Circuit Court 5 in 

November 2020 and took office on January 1, 2021. The misconduct set 

forth in the conditional agreement began the day Respondent took office 

and continued through at least March 31, 2023. 

A. Conflicts of Interest—Landmark Accounts 

Before Respondent’s election, he was judge of Edgewood Town Court 

for about fifteen years, where he supervised three staff. During this time, 

Respondent represented client Landmark Accounts, Inc. in small claims 

matters. After Respondent’s son was admitted to the bar in September 

2020, he began practicing in Respondent’s firm. And when Respondent 

took the bench in January 2021, his son took over representing Landmark 

Accounts. 

In April 2022, the Commission received a complaint that Respondent 

was presiding over cases in which his son served as counsel and in which 

Respondent had previously served as counsel. Two months later, 

Respondent tendered a self-report that acknowledged presiding over the 

Landmark Accounts cases and admitted the measures he had undertaken 

to prevent that from happening had resulted in “errors by his court staff.” 

From January 20, 2021, to April 13, 2022, Respondent presided over 

twenty-seven cases in which his son appeared as counsel and Landmark 

Accounts was a party. He issued sixty-six signature-stamped orders in 

those cases, including orders granting the withdrawal of his own 

appearance as Landmark Accounts’ attorney. MyCase listed Respondent 

as the judicial officer in multiple Landmark Accounts cases, even though a 

magistrate actually heard those cases. Respondent admits he failed to 

adequately supervise his staff in handling the Landmark Accounts cases, 

which led to the public perception that he was presiding over cases in 

which he had previously been counsel of record or his son was counsel of 

record. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-JD-35 | May 17, 2024 Page 4 of 11

B. Missing Orders and CCS Entries in Criminal Cases 

Prompted by the Landmark Accounts reports, the Commission issued a 

notice of investigation in January 2023. While this investigation was 

ongoing, the Commission received a report that there were criminal cases 

in Respondent’s court with missing case entries and orders, and so in 

April 2023, the Commission amended its notice of investigation. 

Further investigation revealed that from January 1, 2021, to March 31, 

2023, there were about forty criminal cases with missing entries and 

orders. These missing items included: (1) failure to update warrants 

accurately; (2) failure to set jury trial dates; (3) failure to reflect what took 

place at certain hearings; and (4) failure to state whether future hearing 

dates were needed. More specifically: 

• When the judge ordered the bond revoked for a defendant who 

violated pretrial release, the CCS entry revoking bond was 

withdrawn and the case was never placed back on the docket; it 

was then dismissed on Criminal Rule 4(C) grounds. 

• When the judge recalled a warrant of a defendant charged with 

resisting law enforcement, and staff input an entry recalling the 

warrant, no hearing was scheduled; the case was then dismissed 

on Criminal Rule 4(C) grounds. 

• Court staff failed to update the docket regarding what took place 

during a bench trial that had been postponed and failed to set a 

future hearing date. 

• Court staff mistakenly updated the docket to withdraw a 

warrant for a defendant charged with residential entry; the 

mistake was not corrected (and the warrant was not reissued) for 

nearly five months. 

• No future dates were set in at least thirty-six pending cases. 

Ultimately, these missing entries and orders led to the dismissal of sixteen 

cases because the defendants were not timely tried under Criminal Rule 4(C). 

During the investigation, the Commission also discovered a pattern of 

delay in issuing criminal orders in Respondent’s court. Multiple people 

made Respondent aware of these delays, including other judges and 

members of the prosecutor’s office, and they told Respondent his lead 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-JD-35 | May 17, 2024 Page 5 of 11

criminal court reporter was four or 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 or order had been made or 

whether the matter had been scheduled for a future court date.

The Commission identified at least seven cases in which there was a 

significant delay in issuing a warrant, with delays ranging from thirty 

days to sixteen months. These delays all involved Level 6 felonies, 

including charges of battery against a public safety official, domestic 

battery, strangulation, auto theft, neglect of a dependent, possession of 

methamphetamine, and residential entry. 

And in another Level 6 felony case, State v. Reynolds, Respondent did 

not issue an order for more than six months. In August 2022, Respondent 

took the State’s motion to reconsider alternative misdemeanor sentencing 

under advisement. Respondent provided his court reporter with a signed 

order in November 2022, but she failed to issue and distribute it. In 

February 2023, the prosecutor brought the delay to the court reporter’s 

attention, and the court reporter told Respondent she could not find the 

order. Respondent gave her another copy, but she failed to enter and 

distribute it until Respondent again brought it to her attention in March 

2023—two months after the Commission issued its notice of investigation 

on the Landmark Accounts matters. 

C. Erroneously Stamped Custody Orders in Matter of H.M.

In April 2023, Respondent made another self-report about the erroneous 

issuance of an ex parte custody order in Matter of H.M., a custody dispute. 

There, in May 2022, Respondent ordered temporary joint legal and 

physical custody of the minor child. On April 12, 2023, one party moved 

for emergency modification of custody and requested an expedited 

hearing. Later that day, an order granting the motion was issued with 

Respondent’s electronic signature. 

Under Trial Rule 65(B), a temporary restraining order may be granted 

without notice only if “it clearly appears from specific facts shown by 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-JD-35 | May 17, 2024 Page 6 of 11

affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable 

injury ... will result to the applicant before the adverse party or his 

attorney can be heard in opposition,” and “the applicant’s attorney 

certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, [that] have been made to 

give notice[.]” The court granting the order, in turn, must “define the 

injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted 

without notice; and shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, 

not to exceed ten [10] days...” 

Respondent’s self-report stated “court staff had erroneously affixed 

Respondent’s signature electronically to an order that modified custody” 

in Matter of H.M. without all parties first being heard. This order did not 

comply with Trial Rule 65(B). 

On Thursday, April 13, the day after Respondent issued the ex parte 

order, counsel for the opposing party moved to correct error. And on 

Tuesday, April 18, Respondent granted the motion and vacated his April 

12 order. Respondent stated he had instructed his court reporter to 

schedule the matter for hearing and failed to review the order before it 

was sent to the parties. Respondent’s self-report also stated this was the 

second time an order had been erroneously issued in Matter of H.M.; in 

May 2022, Respondent issued an order striking an April 2022 order setting 

temporary custody to one party.

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 2.5(A), requiring judges to perform judicial and 

administrative duties competently, diligently, and promptly; and 

• Rule 2.12(A), requiring judges to supervise court staff to act in a 

manner consistent with the judge’s obligations under the Code 

of Judicial Conduct. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-JD-35 | May 17, 2024 Page 7 of 11

In aggravation, the parties note that Respondent has already been 

privately cautioned by the Commission for violating Rule 2.12(A). In 

mitigation, they cite Respondent’s cooperation with the Commission, 

acceptance of responsibility for his misconduct, and efforts to undertake 

additional training to prevent this misconduct from recurring. 

The parties agree that an appropriate sanction is a forty-five-day 

suspension without pay.1 Suspensions longer than thirty 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). The 

scope of Respondent’s misconduct—which began as soon as he took office 

in 2021, impacted multiple facets of his caseload and management duties, 

and led to over a dozen criminal cases being involuntarily dismissed—

warrants such a severe sanction. 

Respondent, through his staff, issued sixty-six orders in Landmark

Accounts cases—including orders granting Respondent’s own withdrawal 

as Landmark Accounts’s attorney. This led to the public perception that 

Respondent presided over dozens of cases in which he or his son 

appeared as counsel. 

Respondent’s pattern of failing to take judicial action in criminal cases led 

to the dismissal of sixteen criminal cases; missing orders and CCS entries 

meant the defendants were not timely brought to trial. Not only does this 

harm the administration of justice generally, but it also individually harms 

the witnesses and alleged victims who cooperated in the prosecution of 

those actions. Several of the cases with missing entries involved domestic 

battery in the presence of a child, strangulation, and residential entry. And 

despite being made aware of these delays and omissions by multiple 

people, including his fellow judges, Respondent failed to take any 

corrective action until the Commission began receiving complaints.

1 The parties have also agreed that Respondent will complete nine additional hours of judicial 

education, including topics of proper case management and the exercise of supervisory 

duties, and he will meet with another judge in a mentorship role to provide guidance and 

support in addressing these topics. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-JD-35 | May 17, 2024 Page 8 of 11

Misconduct like Respondent’s has led to the most severe sanction the 

Court can impose—removal of a sitting judge and a permanent ban on 

judicial office. In Matter of Kouros, we removed a Lake Superior Court 

judge from office for failing to promptly issue orders in criminal cases for 

several years and for misleading State Court Administration about her 

compliance with this Court’s orders. 816 N.E.2d 21, 22 (Ind. 2004). 

In 2001, after receiving reports that the judge often delayed issuing 

written sentencing orders, we entered an administrative order requiring 

the other Lake Superior Court judges to review the delays and submit a 

plan for addressing the issue. The judges’ report revealed there were 330 

files in Judge Kouros’s office awaiting the entry of orders and return to the 

clerk’s office; it also stated the judge had initiated a new method of 

processing docket entries that should prevent further delays. But the 

delays continued, and in 2002, the Court asked State Court Administration

staff to monitor Judge Kouros’s case processing. Staff soon discovered 

more than 200 files that were missing case entries. 

The Commission filed disciplinary charges, and after a hearing, the 

special masters issued a report finding grounds for discipline but 

declining to recommend any specific sanction. We ultimately removed the 

judge from office, concluding this most severe sanction was necessary to 

protect the integrity of the judicial system and to ensure the fair and 

timely administration of justice. Aggravators included Judge Kouros’s 

experience, her persistent failure to perform her judicial duties over 

several years, the misimpressions she gave the Court about her 

cooperation with our order, and that the misconduct “affected not only 

the parties . . . but also others interested in the efficient operation of the 

criminal justice system.” Id. at 30. 

Kouros weighed heavily on our analysis in Matter of Hawkins, where we

suspended the respondent judge from office for sixty days for a pattern of 

excessive delays in ruling on petitions for post-conviction relief. 902 

N.E.2d 231, 233, 244–46 (Ind. 2009). Delays ranged from six months to 

nearly two-and-a-half years, and in one case, led to a two-year delay in 

releasing a defendant from prison. While the delays were attributed to the 

court’s commissioner, who agreed to a permanent ban on judicial office 

for her misconduct, the judge was charged with failure to supervise. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-JD-35 | May 17, 2024 Page 9 of 11

As in Kouros, the judge’s lack of candor enhanced the discipline 

imposed in Hawkins. The judge told Commission counsel “[t]he attorneys 

didn’t write or call” to follow up on the delay in the defendant’s release 

from prison, but the evidence showed both the defendant and his attorney 

had contacted the court, in writing, on several occasions. Id. at 236. And 

during the Commission’s investigation, the defendant’s file disappeared, 

then reappeared without explanation and with some documents missing. 

The masters stated they would have recommended a suspension without 

pay for Judge Hawkins’s mishandling of PCR cases, but they ultimately 

recommended he be removed from office for “failing to correct the 

misimpressions he and his staff gave to the Commission” during its 

investigation. Id. at 244. The Court was split, with three Justices 

concurring in a sixty-day suspension (though two would also have 

favored thirty days) and two Justices indicating they would have 

suspended the judge for one or two years. 

Four years later, another Marion Superior Court judge was charged with 

a pattern of mishandling criminal matters, among other ethical violations. 

In Matter of Brown, after a contested hearing, we removed the judge from 

office for her “mismanagement, delays, and dereliction of judicial duties on 

cases; ... failure to complete necessary paperwork and adequately train or 

supervise court staff, which resulted in delayed releases of defendants 

from jail; and failure to cooperate with members of the Marion Superior

Court’s Executive Committee to address the underlying issues that led to 

the delayed releases.” 4 N.E.3d 619, 621 (Ind. 2014). 

The judge’s admitted violations included routinely removing case files 

from file drawers and storing them in her office, where staff could not find 

them. She also delayed ruling on cases for months or even years. The most 

egregious example was her failure to vacate a conviction for a defendant 

after the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial in 2010; 

the omission was not corrected until 2013, when a new judge was 

assigned to the court. 

Judge Brown was also charged with delaying ten defendants’ release

from jail, the delays ranging from one to twenty-two days. The Court 

determined these delays resulted from the judge’s failure to complete 

minute-entry paperwork and train, instruct, and supervise her staff. The 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-JD-35 | May 17, 2024 Page 10 of 11

Court also noted the judge was alerted to several delayed releases in 

January 2013 but did not hold a staff meeting to address correcting the 

errors until late April or early May, and several more delayed releases 

continued through the summer. 

In Brown, as here, various people alerted the judge to delayed jail

releases, missing paperwork, and other problems in processing criminal 

cases. Judge Brown repeatedly failed to follow up on these concerns and 

further refused to cooperate with the Executive Committee when other 

judges offered help. The Court determined Judge Brown’s misconduct 

was “more widespread and egregious” than the misconduct at issue in 

Hawkins, and “most closely resembles Kouros in the scope and effect[.]” Id.

at 628–29. It cited her prior experience as a small claims court judge, 

noting that like Judge Kouros (and Respondent here), she was “not a 

novice” judge when the misconduct occurred. Id. at 629.

The proposed forty-five-day suspension in the instant case is a less 

severe sanction than in Kouros, Hawkins, and Brown. But these other cases 

were each decided after a hearing. Conditional agreements, on the other 

hand, “are often the product of lengthy negotiations and may merit a less 

severe sanction than might otherwise be imposed after a trial on the 

merits.” Matter of Meade, 200 N.E.3d 448, 452 (Ind. 2023). The Kouros line of 

cases are also distinguishable in that they involve claims the judges misled 

the Commission or failed to provide accurate information to the Court. 

See, e.g., Hawkins, 902 N.E.2d at 244 (noting the masters recommended the 

judge be suspended for the underlying misconduct but removed for his 

failure to correct misimpressions). 

But like Kouros and Brown, Respondent’s misconduct was not isolated;

and he failed to act when others repeatedly brought delays and omissions 

to his attention. Moreover, unlike in Kouros and Hawkins, Respondent’s 

misconduct extended well beyond the failure to supervise the processing 

of criminal cases. Respondent’s staff issued orders in dozens of civil cases 

in which he or his son were listed as counsel, along with an ex parte order 

that granted a change of custody without giving the opposing party notice 

or a chance to respond. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-JD-35 | May 17, 2024 Page 11 of 11

We are troubled by the extent of this misconduct, particularly given 

Respondent’s prior discipline on failure-to-supervise issues and his fifteen 

years of experience as a town court judge. Respondent has agreed to 

complete additional judicial education and meet with a mentor judge to 

support him in handling the court’s caseload and supervising court staff. 

We expect Respondent to take full advantage of these opportunities to 

improve his court management skills. 

Conclusion

Respondent, Scott A. Norrick, shall be suspended without pay from the 

office of Judge of the Madison Circuit Court for forty-five (45) days 

commencing at 12:01 a.m. on June 3, 2024. The suspension shall terminate 

and Respondent shall be automatically reinstated to office at 12:01 a.m. on 

July 18, 2024. This discipline terminates the disciplinary proceedings 

relating to the circumstances giving rise to this case. The Masters 

appointed in this case are discharged, and we thank them for their 

conscientious service in this matter. 

All Justices concur except Slaughter, J., who would reject the 

conditional agreement, believing more severe discipline is 

warranted. 

A T T O R N E Y F O R R E S P O N D E N T

James J. Bell

Hoover Hull Turner LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

A T T O R N E Y S F O R I N D I A N A C O M M I S S I O N O N J U D I C I A L 

Q U A L I F I C A T I O N S

Adrienne L. Meiring, Counsel to the Commission

Jill Esenwein, Staff Attorney

Mark Conner, Staff Attorney

Indianapolis, Indiana