ILNews

Attorney suspended for taking client’s children from school for hours

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Morgan County attorney who picked up children from school on behalf of their father, who she was representing, and drove them around for several hours without notifying the custodial mother was suspended for six months.

The Indiana Supreme Court ordered Cecelia Hemphill of Martinsville suspended from the practice of law effective Sept. 7 without automatic reinstatement.

According to the court’s order, Hemphill said she concluded that the mother’s boyfriend had molested her client’s 8-year-old daughter and needed to speak to the child and her brother alone.

Hemphill went to the child’s school and told the secretary that if the father had the right to pick them up, the secretary had to release them to her because she was his attorney and he asked her to pick up the children, according to the discipline order. The secretary refused at first but felt intimidated and eventually relented, the order said. She became worried and notified the school superintendent, who told the Morgan County sheriff.

“When the sheriff told mother what had happened, she was terrified and became more upset as the evening wore on,” the order said.

Hemphill called the children’s sitter and said she had the children and was meeting the father for dinner with the kids but didn’t say where she or the children were, according to the order. After that dinner, the father left and the children stayed with Hemphill.

Hemphill “drove with the children through the back roads around Martinsville, looking for a birthday party (the daughter) had been invited to attend, relying on the children for directions. (Hemphill’s) cell phone had died and she was low on gas,” according to the order. Despite stopping at several houses, Hemphill couldn’t locate the party and returned the children to their mother at about 8:45 p.m., about six hours after taking them from school.

The court concluded that Hemphill violated Rules of Professional Conduct 4.4(a): using means in representing a client that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person; and 8.4(d): engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

“No legitimate purpose was served by … insisting that the secretary release the children from school and driving them around for several hours without telling mother where they were,” the order stated. It said Hemphill “lacks any insight into why her conduct was wrong, maintaining that she did the right thing because she was serving a higher purpose of protecting the safety of the children. Convincing evidence was presented that this incident was not an isolated lapse.”

“Indiana has laws and procedures to deal with allegations of abuse, as well as agencies specifically designed to, charged with, and trained to deal with such allegations,” the order said, noting that Hemphill “took matters into her own hands and acted precipitously in disregard for the laws and agencies designed to deal with allegations of child abuse.”

 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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/

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  5. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

ADVERTISEMENT