Ogden receives 30-day suspension for criticizing judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis attorney and blogger Paul Ogden has been suspended for 30 days by the Indiana Supreme Court based on comments he made regarding a judge who presided over an estate case involving Ogden’s client.

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission brought two counts against Ogden in March 2013. Count I stems from comments he made regarding Hendricks Superior Judge David H. Coleman, who was appointed special judge in an unsupervised estate case. Ogden successfully had Coleman replaced on the case. In 2010, Ogden made several “highly critical” comments about Coleman in correspondences.

The comment that resulted in Ogden being disciplined alleged that the judge committed malfeasance in the initial stages of the administration of the estate by allowing it to be opened as an unsupervised estate, by appointing a personal representative with a conflict of interest, and by not requiring the posting of bond, the disciplinary order states.

“Respondent’s repeated and virulent accusations that Judge Coleman committed malfeasance in the initial stages of the administration of the Estate were not just false; they were impossible because Judge Coleman was not even presiding over the Estate at this time—a fact Respondent could easily have determined. Because Respondent lacked any objectively reasonable basis for (these) statements, we conclude that Respondent made these statements in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity, thus violating Rule 8.2(a),” the justices unanimously held in an order handed down Monday.

The commission did not meet its burden of proof regarding the other comments Ogden made regarding Coleman, the justices found, leading the court to find Ogden’s criticisms of Coleman’s rulings fall within his broad First Amendment rights. And although another allegation of a conflict of interest turned out to be false, it was based upon Ogden’s client’s reports to him. The justices found Ogden’s allegation that Coleman was unqualified as a judge and that he engaged in judicial misconduct in presiding over the estate were “more in the nature of opinions as opposed to statements of fact.”

Count II deals with letters Ogden sent to the Marion Superior Court, Civil Division, the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, the Indiana attorney general and the Marion County public safety director, asking that they ensure the law regarding forfeiture is followed and enforced. At the time the letters were sent, Ogden was not representing any party in pending forfeiture cases.

The justices concluded that the Disciplinary Commission did not present clear and convincing evidence that the letters Ogden sent were prejudicial to the administration of justice.

They also noted that Ogden has been “obstreperous rather than cooperative” during the course of this disciplinary proceeding.

His suspension begins Aug. 5 and he will be automatically reinstated. Ogden is to pay one-half of the costs and expenses of this proceeding, along with a $250 fee.


  • Spot on
    Spot on, Mr. Hofer. Had Paul not resisted we would not have this fine re-statement of Dixon and he would be out of the practice for one year. I think the High Court might have meant to award only half of the copying costs to the State, not half of their attorneys fees. If the latter, then many of the solo practitioners targeted cannot, like Paul, like most targetted, cannot afford to resist the Will of the State.
  • obstreperous?
    The Court said Ogden was “obstreperous rather than cooperative". I think they got their parties mixed up. They ruled Ogden correct on 80% of the issues. The final issue would never have resulted in the loss of a law license like the Disciplinary Commission wanted. Why should you be cooperative when the government is trying to take away your livelihood for speech that is protected by the First Amendment? It's not a fair result when you are assessed $10k in prosecution charges when the prosecution stuck to an unreasonable position the entire litigation and lost most of the lawsuit. Ogden has done a great public service in pointing out that major changes need to be made at the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.
    • Poll Idea
      Hey Indiana Attorney .... how about conducting a poll on whether it is just for Ogden to pay $10000 to the disciplinary office for giving him due process of law? Choices could be "very unfair" "possibly unfair" "uncertain" "resistance is futile" and the anciently popular, "worship the state."
    • Sad, sad, pathetic
      Advance Indiana is reporting on a chilling wind that should advise every attonrey in Indiana to not disagree with any government attorneys. to simply be unthinking, uncaring automatons like the powerful and connected want: " UPDATE II: The Disciplinary Commission billed Ogden $10,300 for his share of the expenses for their failed efforts to bar him from the practice of law in Indiana."
    • Gary on Paul
      Advance Indiana is the place to go for more on this story ... Welch writes "Attorneys in Indiana should be very thankful to Ogden for standing his ground and fighting for a fundamental right all attorneys should hold as sacred. He has suffered severe and undue hardship as a result of this entire ordeal. This decision, in my opinion, exonerates him for the most part, notwithstanding the additional hardship of a 30-day suspension he must incur. This was certainly not the outcome desired by the disciplinary commission or the hearing officer." And he quotes Paul at this post as well:
    • here
      Here it the clip, for our younger readers .... The Travelor has come ... hmmm, I think friends should hire Ogden to write some policy pieces in August.
      • Justice is done
        This certainly appears to be a just result, and yet another clear sign of a seismic and very welcome sea change in how the Ind Supreme Court approaches these issues. Who woulda thunk it just a few short years ago, but Indiana attorneys really do have first amendment rights. Perhaps the revolution can now be postponed. AND ... this line reminded me of the Marshmallow man scene from Ghost Busters ... "Respondent has suggested that any misconduct the Court finds should warrant no more than a 30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement. See Brief on Sanctions at 19. We impose discipline accordingly"

        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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

        2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

        3. 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.

        4. 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.

        5. 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.