Surrogate: Clients lost fees paid to attorney who fled

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As many as 80 clients of a Kokomo attorney may have pre-paid for bankruptcy petitions that the attorney failed to file before leaving the country, according to the lawyer appointed to wind down the practice.

Kokomo lawyer Bradley Hamilton has been missing for more than a month, leaving behind numerous unrepresented clients and about 150 active cases, according to attorney Brent Dechert of Kokomo, who was appointed this month to serve as a surrogate.

Dechert said Hamilton moved to his wife’s native Australia when she returned there with their children. “It’s quite a mess,” Dechert said.

Dechert said he couldn’t estimate how much clients may have lost and that clients are still making claims. “I think it could be substantial,” he said, but he noted there still are accounts with balances, and it will be up to the court to determine who will receive compensation.

Howard Superior 4 Judge George Hopkins earlier this month signed an order appointing Dechert to serve as a surrogate after Dechert petitioned the court. He said Hamilton left the country after unsuccessfully trying to sell his law practice.

Hopkins’ order says, “the disappearance and/or abrupt closure of Bradley D. Hamilton's law office constitutes an occurrence under Supreme Court Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 27(c), which requires the appointment of an attorney surrogate to act as custodian of Bradley Hamilton's law practice.”

A recording on Hamilton’s office voice mail line accepted messages but also said, “This office has closed.”

The surrogate order appoints Dechert to act as custodian, transfer files and notify clients pursuant to the rule. The order also grants a 120-day extension on statutes of limitations, deadlines and most filing time limits for Hamilton’s clients, as provided in ADR 23, Section 27(e).

Dechert, whose practice is predominantly family law, said he’s been able to take some of those cases, and other attorneys in Kokomo have stepped up to take some of the bankruptcy and miscellaneous civil cases left unrepresented. He said his first priority as surrogate is making sure files are returned to clients who can decide how best to proceed with their cases.

Dechert said he’s had limited email contact with Hamilton since being appointed surrogate. “This was not the way it should have been closed down,” Dechert said.

Dechert said some of Hamilton’s clients had filed or were planning to file complaints with the Howard County Bar and the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, and he had provided information to them about filing complaints.

Hamilton was last seen in Kokomo in late September. He was admitted to practice in 1984 and is listed on the Indiana Roll of Attorneys as active and in good standing, with prior disciplinary matters filed in 2010 concluded in March 2012.



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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?