ILNews

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.

Suspension
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.

Contempt
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.•

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT