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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT