ILNews

Valparaiso attorney charged with stealing $1.6M resigns

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Valparaiso attorney charged with five counts of theft for allegedly stealing more than $1.6 million from business clients he represented has resigned from the Indiana bar.

Clark W. Holesinger, 52, tendered his resignation which was accepted last week by order of the Indiana Supreme Court. But the justices aren’t finished dealing with the Holesinger matter just yet.

The order dated March 12 does not specify the nature of the disciplinary proceeding against Holesinger. It notes, though, that his resignation affidavit “requires an acknowledgement that there is presently pending an investigation into or a proceeding involving allegations of misconduct and that (Holesinger) could not successfully defend himself if prosecuted” by the court’s Disciplinary Commission.

The commission filed no verified complaint against Holesinger – the public disclosure of disciplinary action – and the court order accepting his resignation is the only public information available about his disciplinary case, according to Supreme Court outreach coordinator Sarah Kidwell.

Under Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17), Holesinger’s resignation affidavit “shall not be publicly disclosed or made available for use in any other proceeding except upon order of this court.”

Holesinger was charged in February with four counts of Class C felony theft of more than $100,000, and the charges last week were amended to include a fifth count of Class D felony theft.

The charges are an outgrowth of a civil suit filed against Holesinger in Porter Superior Court on behalf of four Valparaiso businesses. Holesinger is accused of stealing more than $1.6 million over the past three years from companies owned by Chris Andrews. Holesinger had been Andrews’ family attorney since the mid-90s, according to the lawsuit.

That case is currently without a presiding judge. In January, Porter Superior 2 Judge William Alexa granted Holesinger’s motion for a special judge. Porter Superior 4 Judge David Chidester was assigned the case but declined jurisdiction. On Feb. 18, the court petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for a special judge, but as of Monday, no special judge appointment was reflected on the docket.

Meanwhile, a second civil suit in Porter County accuses Holesinger of legal malpractice.


 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT