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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT