Disciplinary Actions - 2/12/14

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Disciplinary Actions

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission brings charges against attorneys who have violated the state’s rules for admission to the bar and Rules of Professional Conduct. The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications brings charges against judges, judicial officers, or judicial candidates for misconduct. Details of attorneys’ and judges’ actions for which they are being disciplined by the Supreme Court will be included unless they are not a matter of public record under the court’s rules.

Paul J. Page, of Marion County, has been suspended on an interim basis due to his 2013 conviction of felony wire fraud, per a Jan. 27 order. The interim suspension shall continue until further order of the court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action. Justice Mark Massa did not participate.

Stanley Kahn, of Marion County, has been suspended for six months, all stayed subject to completion of 18 months of probation, per a Jan. 17 order. Kahn was found to have violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(c), and 5.3(b) and Guideline 9.1, as well as Admission and Discipline Rule 23(29)(a)(4). Kahn’s office manager “T.T.” transferred funds from an attorney trust account to the firm’s operating account to continue funding the operations of the law office, which was experiencing financial difficulties in 2010. Because Kahn did not monitor T.T., he did not discover these transfers until December 2011. T.T. also improperly comingled more than $150,000 in client funds into an account that holds funds to pay the firm’s end-of-year tax obligations. T.T. attempted to conceal her actions. The order notes that no clients were harmed as a result of Kahn’s misconduct.

Shante P. Henry, of Lake County, has been suspended indefinitely, per a Jan. 23 order. Henry was originally suspended in May 2013 for failure to cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission.

Joshua R. Payton, of St. Joseph County, has been suspended on an interim basis due to a felony conviction in Michigan, per a Jan. 23 order. Payton accepted a plea offer in Michigan and was found guilty of Class G felony fleeing or eluding a police officer in the fourth degree.

Jeremy S. Brenman, of Monroe County, has been suspended indefinitely per a Jan. 23 order. Brenman was originally suspended in May 2013 for failure to cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission.

David E. Schalk, of Monroe County, has been found in contempt of court by the Indiana Supreme Court, per a Jan. 27 order. Schalk was suspended in May 2013 without automatic reinstatement for at least nine months. In September 2013, the Disciplinary Commission alleged that Schalk represented two people in a guardianship proceeding. His actions on the guardianship proceeding constitute the practice of law in violation of the suspension order. The justices imposed a $500 fine for practicing law while suspended.•


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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.