Questions Raised Again Over Judicial/Lawyer Discipline and “Selective Enforcement” in Indiana

A growing debate is emerging in Indiana legal circles following disciplinary charges filed against John M. Plummer III, a Lawrence County judge accused of marijuana use and providing inconsistent statements during an investigation by the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications.

The charges against Judge Plummer stem from allegations that between February and May 2025 he consumed marijuana products obtained legally from Michigan while serving on the bench.

A former LaPorte County Prosecutor now deceased openly bragged he smoked pot and refused to enforce personal use possession cases in that Indiana county. LaPorte County Indiana borders Berien County Michigan where dozens of cannabis shops blanket the state border.

Investigators also allege that his sworn testimony later conflicted with earlier admissions regarding the extent of his use.

According to the Commission’s filing, concerns first surfaced after colleagues, attorneys, and court personnel observed what they described as erratic behavior, emotional instability, and unusually pressured speech during public meetings and court operations.

Judge Plummer reportedly acknowledged at one point that he used THC products to help him sleep during a personal crisis. However, investigators later concluded that his use may have been more extensive than initially disclosed.

What is now fueling broader discussion across Indiana’s legal community is not merely the allegation itself, but whether judicial and attorney discipline in Indiana is applied consistently.

Critics of Indiana’s disciplinary system argue that some judges and politically connected legal figures appear to receive softer treatment, while solo practitioners and outsiders are pursued aggressively. Supporters of the current system counter that the Judicial Qualifications Commission acted appropriately once evidence surfaced and that judges must be held to the highest ethical standards because public confidence in the courts depends on integrity and honesty.

The official filing against Plummer states that his conduct allegedly violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.16(A) of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, which require judges to comply with the law, avoid impropriety, and cooperate honestly with disciplinary authorities.

The Indiana Supreme Court ultimately has authority over the matter and could dismiss the case, approve an agreement, impose sanctions, suspend the judge, or permanently remove him from judicial office.

The case has already reignited long-running conversations in Indiana about transparency, accountability, and whether the state’s disciplinary mechanisms operate evenly across the legal profession. Some reform advocates say the public deserves a clearer understanding of how disciplinary decisions are made and whether comparable conduct has resulted in similar punishment in past cases.

The discussion has also revived criticism of Indiana’s broader attorney and judicial disciplinary culture, including debates surrounding longtime disciplinary officials and whether the system historically exercised too much discretion behind closed doors.

Others strongly defend the current structure, arguing that confidentiality and judicial independence are necessary to preserve fairness and public trust in the courts.

For now, Judge Plummer remains on leave while proceedings continue.

He has the right to respond formally to the charges, and no final disciplinary ruling has yet been issued by the Indiana Supreme Court.