Bell/Gaerte: 3 things to know about responding to disciplinary grievances

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bell Gaerte 3 thingsAccording to the Indiana Supreme Court’s Annual Report, 1,474 requests for investigation were submitted to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission by the public and 47 grievances were initiated by the commission between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013. While this may seem like a lot, the good news is that only 52 of these 1,521 grievances were reduced to formal charges in verified complaints.

These numbers seem to show that at some point, you may have the wonderful opportunity to respond to a disciplinary grievance. With that in mind, here are three things to know about responding to a disciplinary commission grievance:

1. Calm down and take your time

I realize this is easier said than done. As much as you will want to get this pleasurable experience over with as soon as possible, you also want to make certain that you are not making your situation worse. Generally speaking, it is common for the commission to grant at least one extension of time for a lawyer to respond to the grievance. Accuracy in your response, not speed, will be the commission’s and your goal.

Several attorneys have been prosecuted for violating Rule 8.1(a) of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. This rule makes it a violation to knowingly issue a false statement of material fact to the commission in a grievance response. Take the time to investigate the allegation thoroughly and draft a deliberate response. Arguably, some of these attorneys may have avoided this charge if they had taken their time to respond to the grievance, acted more deliberately and written more accurately.

After you have paused to review your file thoroughly, take the grievance seriously and respond to it professionally. Don’t do what one lawyer did when he was accused of having a sexual relationship with his client. In his grievance response, he characterized the allegations as “nothing more than the raving of a lazy, promiscuous, greedy, psychotic b*tch.” Matter of E.G., 674 N.E.2d 551, 553 (Ind. 1996). This comment made it to the published decision and many respected commentators have speculated that this response was a “first draft” and that had the respondent taken more time to respond, he may have deleted this sentence.

2. Actually answer the grievance

Given that the disciplinary commission generally grants at least one extension of time to respond to a grievance, it may be surprising to learn that many attorneys do not respond to the grievances at all. It seems obvious, but apparently it bears advising that grievances don’t just go away and the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission isn’t just going to close a file without a response from the attorney. The annual report cited above noted that 50 Petitions to Show Cause for Noncooperation were filed in the reported year. Several of these petitions resulted in what is called “Noncooperation Suspensions” and 11 of these suspensions became “Indefinite.”

3. Don’t attempt to limit your exposure

You may be dealing with an unhappy client right now and feel that a grievance is inevitable. If you find yourself in this situation, resist the temptation to obtain a promise from your client not to file a grievance. Such attempts in and of themselves subject you to discipline. Obtaining such a promise has been deemed by the Indiana Supreme Court as an attempt to obstruct the disciplinary process and a violation of the Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d). See Matter of C.B., 615 N.E.2d 106, 108 (Ind. 1993).

Most of you do not have “Respond to a Disciplinary Grievance” on your bucket list. Hopefully, you will never have an opportunity to utilize any information in this article. But if you have to respond to a disciplinary grievance from the commission, answer the grievance timely, deliberately and accurately. Doing so will increase the chances that the informal investigation will not result in a formal charge. As the old saying goes, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” This is especially true in this setting.•


James J. Bell and K. Michael Gaerte are attorneys with Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. They assist lawyers and judges with professional liability and legal ethics issues. They also practice in criminal defense and are regular speakers on criminal defense and ethics topics. They can be reached at or The opinions expressed are those of the authors.


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. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.