ILNews

2 attorneys suspended over real estate deal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Disciplinary Actions

Two attorneys have been suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court for their representation of a client in a real estate contract in which one of the attorneys had a financial interest.

In the combined disciplinary action released today, In the matter of: Jeffrey S. Rasley and In the Matter of: David M. Wood, Nos. 49S00-0808-DI-468, -467, Jeffrey Rasley and David Wood worked together in the same firm. A "seller" in the business of rehabbing and selling distressed real estate sold some property to the "buyer" he met through a third party in 2002. That third party brought Rasley into the transaction when the buyer borrowed $11,500 from Rasley to improve the property. The buyer signed a note for repayment, which was secured by a second mortgage on the property. The seller signed a mortgage on the property which held the seller and buyer liable in case of default.

The buyer fell behind on payments and Rasley had his law partner, Wood, send a letter to the buyer and seller saying Rasley would foreclose the property if the debt wasn't repaid. Rasley later said he wouldn't foreclose if a monthly interest payment was made to him. The seller interpreted this to mean that the seller was responsible for the payment since the buyer had no money.

Then the seller asked Wood about hiring his firm to represent him in a dispute with the buyer over the property because he thought Rasley would refrain from asserting his claim against him. Rasley attempted to resolve conflicts between himself and the seller; the two agreed the seller would assume the buyer's obligation to Rasley and they could jointly sue the buyer if necessary. The seller was never informed that he could consult outside counsel about the agreement.

In 2004, Rasley sent a letter demanding the seller pay the firm's attorney's fees, and acknowledge his priority on the lien of the property, or else he'd sue. The seller eventually agreed to settle the case by paying Rasley $15,600.

The Supreme Court unanimously found Rasley violated Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(b) based on his representation of the seller, and that Wood violated Rule 1.7(a) for his representation of both Rasley and the seller. Rasley and Wood lacked insight into their misconduct and expressed no remorse for it, the per curium opinion stated. The justices concluded Rasley didn't intentionally harm the seller and worked diligently to help him gain control of the property. Neither respondent has any disciplinary history.

Rasley will be suspended 120 days without automatic reinstatement and Wood will be suspended 30 days with automatic reinstatement because of his lesser role in the misconduct and his junior position to Rasley in experience and within the firm. The suspensions begin Jan. 22, 2010.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT