Lawyer resigns over adding fee requirement to plea deal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis attorney who ran for elected office multiple times has resigned from the bar rather than face a disciplinary charge that he added a demand for a fee to a client’s proposed criminal plea agreement.

The Indiana Supreme Court issued an order May 8 accepting the resignation of Todd Woodmansee and concluding his discipline case, 49S00-1305-DI-347. The order says Woodmansee tendered a resignation that requires “acknowledgement that the material facts alleged are true” and that Woodmansee couldn’t successfully defend himself if prosecuted by the Disciplinary Commission.

Woodmansee represented Joshua Griffin, who was charged with Class D felony domestic battery and numerous misdemeanors. Woodmansee agreed to take the case on a $1,000 flat fee according to the verified petition, but upon later learning that Griffin was on probation for an earlier similar conviction, the attorney agreed to represent him on that matter for an additional $750.

Some time later, a deputy prosecutor emailed Woodmansee a proposed plea bargain that included a clause reading, “Defendant agrees guilty plea herein is a violation of defendants’ probation … therefore, probation is hereby revoked under that cause and terminated unsuccessfully, case closed.”

But the petition in Woodmansee’s disciplinary case alleged that he forwarded the agreement to Griffin in an email, adding these words at the end of the clause: “upon defendant paying costs of $750 through his attorney to the probation department.”

“The term of the $750 payment to probation was not in the original plea agreement sent from the prosecutor and was not intended to go toward any probation costs,” the petition reads. “Instead, (Woodmansee) added this term as a pretense to obtain the additional $750 that his client had originally stated he would pay.”

Griffin pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to time served and an additional 319 days of probation.

Woodmansee had filed for the Democratic Party’s nomination for Superior Court judge in last week’s primary, but he withdrew from the race in January. He previously ran for City-County Council in 2011 and Warren Township Small Claims Court judge in 2009, according to the Marion County Clerk’s Office.


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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues