Title: In re Meade
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 22S-JD-00390
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: January 12, 2023

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 22S-JD-390 
In the Matter of the Honorable  
Jeffrey F. Meade, Judge of the  
Gibson Circuit Court, 
Respondent. 
 
Decided: January 12, 2023 
Judicial Discipline Action 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur.  
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jan 12 2023, 8:48 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JD-390 | January 12, 2023 
Page 2 of 7 
Per curiam.  
We find that Respondent—the Honorable Jeffrey F. Meade, Judge of the 
Gibson Circuit Court—engaged in judicial misconduct by making 
intemperate comments from the bench; by holding an off-the-record, 
unrecorded child-in-need-of-services (“CHINS”) hearing in which he 
ruled on various substantive motions; and by failing to provide all parties 
to those CHINS proceedings with sufficient notice, an opportunity to be 
heard, and an opportunity to fairly participate in the hearing. Not only 
were Respondent’s actions prejudicial to the administration of justice in 
those specific cases, but they also damaged the public’s confidence in the 
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary more generally. For the reasons 
set forth below, we agree with the parties that Respondent’s misconduct 
warrants a seven-day unpaid suspension from office. 
This matter is before us on the Indiana Commission on Judicial 
Qualifications’ (“Commission”) “Notice of the Institution of Formal 
Proceedings and Statement of Charges” (“Complaint”) against 
Respondent. Contemporaneously with the filing of charges, the parties 
tendered a “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for 
Discipline” in which they stipulated to the following facts.  
Background and Stipulated Facts  
Respondent was admitted to the Indiana bar in 2000 and has served as 
the judge of Gibson Circuit Court since January 1, 2007. At all relevant 
times, Respondent presided over a general jurisdiction docket that 
included CHINS, guardianship, paternity, and dissolution cases. 
A. Intemperate comments from the bench. 
From 2015 until February 2022, Respondent presided over a paternity 
case, In re the Paternity of H.L. During a November 2019 hearing on the 
parents’ cross-petitions to modify custody, as well as during a December 
2020 telephonic conference, Respondent repeatedly made comments about 
his own divorce and custody proceedings and compared his situation 
with that of the litigants before him. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JD-390 | January 12, 2023 
Page 3 of 7 
During the November 2019 hearing and a hearing in May 2021, Respondent 
also made disparaging statements to and about the parties, including:  
• Telling Father to “be quiet,” “zip it,” to “shut [his] mouth,” and to 
“shut up,” even after Father apologized and indicated he 
understood. 
• Referring to Father as “Bud,” “Buddy,” “Bro,” and “Man.”  
• “And then what you don’t have is, see, you don’t have the child 
being passed off like a football. Oh, I’ll pick—let me run for ten 
yards with it because I don’t want that child to go over ten extra—
over ten extra yards, and then the handoff.” 
• “This is just bullshit. I’m sorry, I’m a farm boy. I was raised—I’m 
older than you. I was scooping hog shit long before you, man. I’m 
going to tell you what, this is crap. It stinks. This kind of behavior 
stinks. Okay?” 
• “Now, I’m not playing with this. Okay? This is the 10th freaking day 
of this hearing. Okay? And again I’m not prejudging nothing. I’m 
going to hear this case out and we’ll let the attorneys do their 
findings. Okay? But I’m going to tell you what, you best be calling 
daddy up to get some money coming, I’m telling you that right 
now, because you have intentionally interfered with this woman’s 
parenting time. Okay? And it’s going to cost you a bundle. Okay?” 
• “This is one of the most egregious, okay, egregious interference of 
parenting time that I’ve ever seen. Okay? You do not follow my 
order again you bring your toothbrush, you’re going to be over 
there for days and weeks and months. Is this crystal for you, man?” 
The Commission alleged, and Respondent agrees, that these statements 
violated Rules 1.2 and 2.8(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.   
B. Ex parte and due process violations. 
Beginning in November 2018, Respondent presided over CHINS (and 
related guardianship) cases involving three siblings (“Children”). In 
December 2019, Children’s foster parents moved to intervene in the CHINS 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JD-390 | January 12, 2023 
Page 4 of 7 
cases, with the intention to adopt Children; the motion was granted. In 
March 2020, Paternal Grandmother moved to intervene and filed for third-
party custody, and the court reporter advised the parties that Respondent 
would consider Grandmother’s motion at a May 14, 2020, hearing.  
At an April 29, 2020, telephonic attorney conference—attended by 
counsel for DCS, Foster Parents, Mother, Father, and the CASA Executive 
Director—Respondent granted a motion for grandparent visitation, over 
Foster Parents’ objection. Over the next two weeks, Grandmother 
petitioned for guardianship of Children; DCS petitioned for permanency 
and joinder of the CHINS and guardianship cases; and Foster Parents 
petitioned to adopt Children.  
The May 14, 2020, hearing on Grandmother’s motion to intervene was 
held in Respondent’s chambers. Present were Respondent, DCS’s counsel, 
Mother’s and Father’s counsel, and the CASA Executive Director. Foster 
Parents’ counsel participated through speakerphone. No audio recording 
or transcript was made of the hearing.  
At this hearing, Respondent granted Grandmother’s motion to 
intervene and granted DCS’s motion for permanency and joinder. But 
even after Grandmother was made a party to the case—and despite the 
fact that she was sitting in the hallway outside the courtroom while the 
hearing was held—Respondent failed to summon her or otherwise allow 
her to participate. 
Respondent also considered three oral motions at this off-the-record 
hearing: (1) DCS’s motion to dismiss the CHINS case; (2) Mother’s motion 
for Children to have extended visits with Grandmother; and (3) Mother’s 
motion to remove the CASA assigned to the CHINS cases. Respondent 
gave Foster Parents 14 days to submit a response to DCS’s motion to 
dismiss and, over Foster Parents’ objection, granted Mother’s motions for 
extended visitation with Grandmother and to remove the assigned CASA. 
Respondent denied Foster Parents’ request to appear in person and 
present evidence on the oral motions before Respondent ruled. 
After the hearing, Respondent—without Foster Parents’ knowledge—
asked Mother’s counsel to help the court reporter prepare a minute entry 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JD-390 | January 12, 2023 
Page 5 of 7 
for the hearing. Foster Parents’ counsel later communicated to DCS’s 
counsel that she had a different recollection of Respondent’s oral rulings, 
but her proposed changes were not incorporated into the final order.  
Nearly two years later, on March 15, 2022, Respondent—through his 
staff—changed the CCS entry for the May 14, 2020, hearing to assert that it 
was an “Administrative Event,” not a “Hearing Journal Event.”  
Discussion 
“The effectiveness of the judiciary ultimately rests on the confidence 
that citizens confer on judges. Judges, therefore, must remain vigilant to 
guard against any actions that erode that public trust.” Matter of Adams, 
134 N.E.3d 50, 54 (Ind. 2019). 
The Commission charges, and Respondent agrees, that his actions 
violated the following provisions of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct: 
• Rule 1.1, requiring judges to comply with the law, including the 
Code of Judicial Conduct;  
• 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 2.2, requiring judges to uphold and apply the law and to 
perform all judicial duties fairly and impartially;  
• Rule 2.5, requiring judges to perform judicial and administrative 
duties competently, diligently, and promptly;  
• Rule 2.6, requiring judges to accord to every person who has a legal 
interest in a proceeding the right to be heard according to law;  
• Rule 2.8(B), requiring judges to be patient, dignified, and courteous 
to litigants; and  
• Rule 2.9(A), prohibiting judges from initiating, permitting, or 
considering ex parte communications. 
Respondent also agrees that his misconduct was prejudicial to the 
administration of justice.  
The Conditional Agreement notes, as mitigators, that Respondent has 
accepted responsibility for his conduct and expressed remorse; cooperated 
with the Commission throughout the investigation; has been receiving 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JD-390 | January 12, 2023 
Page 6 of 7 
coaching services; and is engaged in counseling services with a therapist. 
Further, Gibson County recently appointed a new magistrate to serve its 
Circuit and Superior Courts and to handle many family-law matters. 
Respondent also has updated the technology in the courtroom and his 
office to better accommodate remote hearings on the record.  
The parties cite no aggravating factors beyond Respondent’s previous 
discipline; he received caution letters in 2008 and 2010 and completed a 
deferred resolution in 2017 for what the parties describe as “demeanor 
issues” and “non-judicious behavior.” But this sole aggravator reveals a 
troubling pattern of misconduct. This is the fourth time Respondent has 
been disciplined for intemperate or injudicious behavior during his 
sixteen years as a judge. He received his first private caution during his 
second year in office, and the facts giving rise to this complaint began just 
two years after his most recent discipline concluded. While 
acknowledging the steps Respondent has taken to remedy his demeanor 
issues—specifically, completing an eight-session coaching intensive called 
Mindful Boundaries for Judicial Officers and engaging in counseling 
services—we note that the Mindful Boundaries report recommends that 
Respondent pursue “ongoing coaching at a maintenance level,” while the 
parties’ proposed discipline imposes no similar requirement.  
Respondent’s pejorative remarks to litigants, improper ex parte 
communications, and due process violations “diminish[ ] public 
confidence in the judiciary” and “erode the public’s perception of the 
courts as dispensers of impartial justice.” In re Van Rider, 715 N.E.2d 402, 
404 (Ind. 1999). However, we cannot overlook the fact that we are 
considering this matter following the parties’ submission of a conditional 
agreement. In re Koethe, 922 N.E.2d 613, 616 (Ind. 2010). Such agreements 
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. Id. at 
616; see also In re Young, 943 N.E.2d 1276, 1280 (Ind. 2011).  
“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, safeguard the bench and public from those 
who are unfit.” In re Hawkins, 902 N.E.2d 231, 244 (Ind. 2009). The sanction 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JD-390 | January 12, 2023 
Page 7 of 7 
must be designed to deter similar misconduct and assure the public that 
judicial misconduct will not be condoned. Id.  
The Commission and Respondent agree that an appropriate sanction 
for his misconduct is a seven-day suspension without pay. “A suspension 
from office without pay, regardless of duration, is not a minor sanction. 
Even more than a public reprimand, any such suspension is a significant 
blemish on a sitting judge’s reputation.” Hawkins, 902 N.E.2d at 246.  
We agree that this suspension is warranted in light of Respondent’s 
misconduct. The Court therefore orders that Jeffrey F. Meade shall be 
suspended from the office of Judge of the Gibson Circuit Court without 
pay for seven (7) days commencing at 12:01 a.m. on January 30, 2023. The 
suspension shall terminate and the Judge shall automatically be reinstated 
to office at 12:01 a.m. on February 6, 2023.  
With this opinion, we terminate the disciplinary proceedings relating to 
the circumstances giving rise to this case. Because this action was dismissed 
without a hearing and without a finding of misconduct by a panel of Masters, 
Respondent will not be assessed costs. See Ind. Admis. Disc. R. 25(IV).  
Rush, C.J., and Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur.  
A TT O R N E Y F O R  RESP O N D E NT  
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  
Larry D. Newman, Staff Attorney  
Lyubov Gore, Staff Attorney  
Indianapolis, Indiana