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.
William R. Wallace, of Gibson County, has been suspended pendente lite from the practice of law, according to a Jan. 27 Indiana Supreme Court order. Wallace pleaded guilty in October 2011 to Class D felonies obstruction of justice, possession of child pornography and voyeurism.
The charges stem from Wallace allegedly videotaping himself having sex with a former client and employee without her permission. He allegedly told the client that if the two had sex, he would write off money she owed him for legal fees. When police executed a search warrant of his home they took computers, on which they found child pornography.
The interim suspension will continue until further order of the Supreme Court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect.
Roger W. Hultquist, of Allen County, has received a public reprimand for violating five Indiana Professional Conduct Rules, according to a Jan. 30 Indiana Supreme Court order.
Hultquist violated Rules 1.3: failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; 1.4(a)(1): failure to promptly inform a client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required; 1.4(a)(4): failure to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information; 1.4(b): failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions; and 1.6(a): revealing information relating to representation of a client without the client’s informed consent.
Two couples retained Hultquist to file a bankruptcy petition for them before certain amendments to the Bankruptcy Code became effective in 2005. Without the clients’ knowledge, Hultquist arranged to pay an employee in attorney Anthony T. Adolf’s office to prepare and file the petitions electronically using software and court authorization Hultquist lacked. This showed Adolf as being the clients’ counsel. Hultquist and Adolf agreed Adolf would file the petitions and Hultquist would later be substituted as counsel. In each case, the couples’ attempts to contact Hultquist throughout the process were mostly unanswered.•