ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 6/18/14

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.

Termination of Noncooperation Suspension

The Indiana Supreme Court terminated the suspension of Brad J. Weber, of Adams County, May 14. He was suspended for failure to cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission. He is reinstated to the practice of law as long as no other suspension is in effect.

Suspension
Hubert E. Kelly has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana due to a suspension from practice in Arizona. He is suspended indefinitely in Indiana, per a May 29 order. If Kelly is reinstated in Arizona, he may file for reinstatement in Indiana.

Craig R. Benson, of Monroe County, has been suspended for at least 180 days, without automatic reinstatement, per a June 2 order. Justice Steven David dissented, seeking a more severe sanction. Benson, while representing two companies in a debt-collection action, ignored a court order to not distribute $75,000 in proceeds from the sale of the companies’ assets. Benson distributed nearly half of the money to himself for attorney fees and the remaining money to various creditors of the clients. He also advised these two companies to file for bankruptcy to remove jurisdiction from the state trial court to circumvent the trial court’s orders. The trial court found him in contempt for violating the order, fined him $75,000 and ordered him incarcerated until the fine was paid. He spent two days in jail and was released.

The justices found he violated Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(c) and 8.4(d). Benson’s suspension begins July 14 and the costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.•

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. Bob Stochel was opposing counsel to me in several federal cases (including a jury trial before Judge Tinder) here in SDIN. He is a very competent defense and trial lawyer who knows federal civil procedure and consumer law quite well. Bob gave us a run for our money when he appeared on a case.

  2. Awesome, Brian! Very proud of you and proud to have you as a partner!

  3. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  4. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  5. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

ADVERTISEMENT