ILNews

Attorney in contempt for violating suspension

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court fined an attorney for being in contempt of court for work he performed for clients while he was suspended. The justices noted that while they haven't attempted to provide a comprehensive definition of what constitutes the practice of law, they found some of the activities the attorney admitted to performing to constitute the practice of law.

Douglas Patterson was suspended in June 2008 for engaging in attorney misconduct for conversion of client funds, deceit in concealing his misconduct, and dishonesty with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. The Supreme Court suspended him for a period of no less than three years beginning July 31, 2008

In the April 30 order posted online June 19, In the Matter of Douglas W. Patterson, No. 82S00-0402-DI-90, the Supreme Court decided Patterson's review of a proposal to unsecured creditors of his client was not a routine transaction. Patterson worked with a couple who owned two corporations on Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in 2008. Even though a new attorney entered an appearance for the corporations after Patterson's suspension, he continued to perform some work on the bankruptcy. He admitted to proofreading the proposal with regards to the couple's exemption rights, making sure the proposal's description of the bankruptcy process was accurate, and advising the couple the proposal offered unsecured creditors with more than they would receive if they filed for personal bankruptcy.

The Supreme Court found those actions to constitute the practice of law under the circumstances of this case. And although the high court hasn't provided a comprehensive definition of what constitutes the practice of law, Patterson's actions in this case caused him to be in contempt of court. Citing previous caselaw and disciplinary actions, the justices explained the core element of practicing law is giving legal advice to a client. The practice of law also includes making it one's business to act for others in legal formalities, negotiations, or proceedings. Non-attorneys also may not give advice or opinions as to the legal effects of the instruments they prepare or the legal rights of the parties.

Because Patterson's violation of his suspension appeared to be limited to this transaction, the justices concluded a $500 fine was the appropriate discipline. They also noted they will take this incident into consideration if Patterson seeks reinstatement to the practice of law.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT