Disciplinary Actions

Keywords Discipline / neglect
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

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.

Suspensions
Timothy A. Doyle of Marion County has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for failure to cooperate with the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against him. The suspension, delivered in a Supreme Court order filed June 23, 2011, was effective immediately. Doyle was already under suspension orders issued by the court in March.

Barbara A. Transki of LaPorte County has been suspended from the practice of law for a period not less than six months, without automatic reinstatement. The suspension, delivered in a Supreme Court order filed June 23, 2011, is effective Aug. 5. Transki violated the following Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3 – failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; 1.4(a) – failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly respond to reasonable requests for information; 1.4(b) – failure to explain matter to extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions; 3.3(a)(1) – knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal; 8.1(a) – knowingly making a false statement of material fact to the disciplinary commission in connection with a disciplinary matter; 8.1(b) – failure to respond in a timely manner to the commission’s demands for information; and 8.4(c) – engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The hearing officer recommended six months suspension, with 30 days served and the rest stayed subject to two years of probation, but the court imposed a stronger penalty because Transki fabricated a document to mislead the commission.•
 

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}