The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously sanctioned Judge Matthew J. Elkin of Howard Superior Court on Sept. 11, 2025, finding him guilty of multiple judicial misconduct violations that resulted in his resignation and permanent disbarment from judicial service.
The court's per curiam opinion, with Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concurring, detailed several serious ethical breaches by Elkin, who began serving as judge in January 2023.
The primary violations centered on Elkin's failure to disqualify himself from cases where he had previously represented parties as an attorney, creating clear conflicts of interest. This fundamental breach of judicial ethics undermines the impartiality that courts must maintain to preserve public confidence in the justice system.
Additionally, the court found that Elkin made inappropriate comments toward participants in problem-solving courts, which include Howard County's Drug Court and Re-Entry Court. These specialized courts provide intensive judicial monitoring and tailored services to help defendants address substance use issues and reintegration needs. The court's opinion indicated that Elkin showed favoritism to certain litigants while degrading others, behavior that violates judicial conduct standards requiring equal treatment of all parties.
The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications initiated formal proceedings against Elkin through a "Notice of the Institution of Formal Proceedings and Statement of Charges." The case concluded with a jointly tendered "Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline" where both parties stipulated to the facts and agreed to the sanctions.
Beyond the conflicts of interest and inappropriate courtroom comments, the court cited additional misconduct including inadequate supervision of court employees and possible misuse of court funds. These administrative failures compound the judicial ethics violations and suggest broader problems with Elkin's management of his judicial responsibilities.
Problem-solving courts like those Elkin oversaw require specialized training and careful attention to participant needs. According to Indiana Code sections 33-23-16-5 and -9, these courts involve teams consisting of case managers, service providers, attorneys, and probation officers who work together to monitor participants' progress. The collaborative nature of these courts makes appropriate judicial conduct even more critical, as judges must balance therapeutic goals with legal requirements while maintaining proper boundaries with all participants.
The unanimous nature of the Indiana Supreme Court's decision underscores the seriousness of Elkin's violations. When the state's highest court speaks with one voice on judicial discipline matters, it sends a clear message about the standards expected of judges and the consequences for failing to meet those standards.
Elkin's resignation and permanent ban from judicial service represent significant sanctions that reflect the gravity of his misconduct. The permanent nature of the ban means Elkin cannot seek judicial office again in Indiana, effectively ending any future judicial career aspirations.
This case highlights ongoing challenges in judicial ethics enforcement and the importance of proper recusal procedures. When judges fail to recuse themselves from cases involving former clients, they compromise not only their own integrity but also the integrity of the entire judicial process. Such conflicts can lead to appeals, overturned decisions, and erosion of public trust in the courts.
The misconduct also occurred relatively early in Elkin's judicial tenure, as he had served less than three years when the violations were identified. This timeline suggests either inadequate preparation for judicial service or a fundamental misunderstanding of judicial ethics requirements.
For Howard County's court system, Elkin's resignation necessitates finding a replacement to handle the general jurisdiction docket and specialized problem-solving courts. The transition period may impact case scheduling and court operations, particularly for the Drug Court and Re-Entry Court programs that require consistent judicial oversight.
The case serves as a reminder that judicial conduct rules exist to protect the integrity of the judicial system and ensure fair treatment for all parties. When judges violate these standards, swift and appropriate discipline helps maintain public confidence in the courts and reinforces the principle that no one, including judges, is above the law.
Moving forward, this disciplinary action may prompt renewed focus on judicial training and ethics education, particularly for newly elected or appointed judges who may need additional guidance on navigating conflicts of interest and maintaining appropriate courtroom decorum in specialized court settings.