Lawyer suspended for conversion, lying

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court suspended a Vanderburgh County attorney today for at least three years for committing what the court describes as the most serious of ethical breaches.

The court came to its decision In the matter of: Douglas W. Patterson, No. 82S00-0402-DI-90, as a result of Douglas Patterson's conversion of client funds, deceit in concealing his misconduct, and dishonesty with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.

Patterson was an associate at a law firm which maintained a trust account. In 1999, Patterson and attorney Maurice Doll left the firm and started a new one. The new law firm continued to use the old firm's trust account until they established their own in May 2000.

Patterson continued to use the old trust account once the new one had been established. In August 2000, the new firm's bookkeeper discovered Patterson had written five checks to himself or on his behalf from that account in July 2000.

Patterson denied knowledge of the checks and didn't admit to writing the checks until Doll suggested they contact the police. Patterson claimed he only wrote checks out of that account in July 2000, but an audit later revealed he wrote checks to himself in April and May 2000.

Also, in January 2000, Patterson deposited his own funds into the trust account and then immediately wrote a check for the same amount to a church daycare center in order to reimburse the church for a tax debt it owed as a result of a mistake he made in handling its payroll.

Patterson eventually repaid the money he converted, most of which belonged to a single client.

When he appeared before the Disciplinary Commission, Patterson said he only wrote checks to himself in July 2000 and didn't know the funds belonged to clients, but he did admit he mixed client and personal funds in the daycare transaction. He argued the Disciplinary Commission failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to all other charges and asked for a consideration of mitigating factors.

The Supreme Court found overwhelming evidence of Patterson's conversion of funds in the trust account, that he lied when he said he didn't know the money in the account was client funds, and evidence supports the hearing officer's rejection of his credibility regarding this issue.

The high court concluded Patterson violated Professional Rules of Conduct 1.15(b), 8.4(b) and 8.4(c). Because the misconduct of converting client funds, deceit in concealing misconduct, and dishonesty with the Disciplinary Commission are among the most serious of ethical breaches, the court decided he should be suspended from the practice of law for at least three years beginning July 31.

After that time, he may be reinstated only if he pays the costs of this proceeding, fulfills his duties as a suspended attorney, and satisfies the requirements of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4), including demonstrating genuine remorse.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.