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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT