ILNews

Evansville attorney suspended from practice of law

Rebecca Berfanger
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court Monday suspended Evansville attorney Bradley Happe from the practice of law, effective immediately until further order of the court. Happe was arrested in March, accused of having a meth lab in his law office and apartment.

Indiana Lawyer reported in its May 2 issue that on April 26, the Disciplinary Commission asked the Supreme Court to issue an order of interim suspension because two-thirds of the commission voted that Happe may pose a threat to his clients, and if the alleged misconduct charges are true he would be sanctioned under the Admission and Disciplinary Rules.

In the June 4 order, the court grants the petition and orders that Happe "be suspended pendente lite from the practice of law in this state, effective immediately." Happe must now fulfill the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23 (26).

On May 25, The Evansville Courier Press reported "Verdelski Miller, Happe's attorney and a Happe family friend, orally withdrew from the case. ... Attorney Gerald Fuchs will take over Happe's case."

Happe's trial date is June 11, which Judge Wayne Trockman told the Evansville paper will likely be reset for Oct. 8.

Another Evansville attorney, Teresa Perry, was arrested in May for eight counts related to possessing and distributing methamphetamine after she allegedly sold drugs to a police informant, The Evansville Courier Press reported. Her next court appearance is June 13 and a trial in the case is scheduled to begin July 18.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT