ILNews

Bell/Gaerte: 3 things to know about responding to disciplinary grievances

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bell Gaerte 3 thingsAccording to the Indiana Supreme Court’s Annual Report, 1,474 requests for investigation were submitted to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission by the public and 47 grievances were initiated by the commission between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013. While this may seem like a lot, the good news is that only 52 of these 1,521 grievances were reduced to formal charges in verified complaints.

These numbers seem to show that at some point, you may have the wonderful opportunity to respond to a disciplinary grievance. With that in mind, here are three things to know about responding to a disciplinary commission grievance:

1. Calm down and take your time

I realize this is easier said than done. As much as you will want to get this pleasurable experience over with as soon as possible, you also want to make certain that you are not making your situation worse. Generally speaking, it is common for the commission to grant at least one extension of time for a lawyer to respond to the grievance. Accuracy in your response, not speed, will be the commission’s and your goal.

Several attorneys have been prosecuted for violating Rule 8.1(a) of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. This rule makes it a violation to knowingly issue a false statement of material fact to the commission in a grievance response. Take the time to investigate the allegation thoroughly and draft a deliberate response. Arguably, some of these attorneys may have avoided this charge if they had taken their time to respond to the grievance, acted more deliberately and written more accurately.

After you have paused to review your file thoroughly, take the grievance seriously and respond to it professionally. Don’t do what one lawyer did when he was accused of having a sexual relationship with his client. In his grievance response, he characterized the allegations as “nothing more than the raving of a lazy, promiscuous, greedy, psychotic b*tch.” Matter of E.G., 674 N.E.2d 551, 553 (Ind. 1996). This comment made it to the published decision and many respected commentators have speculated that this response was a “first draft” and that had the respondent taken more time to respond, he may have deleted this sentence.

2. Actually answer the grievance

Given that the disciplinary commission generally grants at least one extension of time to respond to a grievance, it may be surprising to learn that many attorneys do not respond to the grievances at all. It seems obvious, but apparently it bears advising that grievances don’t just go away and the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission isn’t just going to close a file without a response from the attorney. The annual report cited above noted that 50 Petitions to Show Cause for Noncooperation were filed in the reported year. Several of these petitions resulted in what is called “Noncooperation Suspensions” and 11 of these suspensions became “Indefinite.”

3. Don’t attempt to limit your exposure

You may be dealing with an unhappy client right now and feel that a grievance is inevitable. If you find yourself in this situation, resist the temptation to obtain a promise from your client not to file a grievance. Such attempts in and of themselves subject you to discipline. Obtaining such a promise has been deemed by the Indiana Supreme Court as an attempt to obstruct the disciplinary process and a violation of the Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d). See Matter of C.B., 615 N.E.2d 106, 108 (Ind. 1993).

Most of you do not have “Respond to a Disciplinary Grievance” on your bucket list. Hopefully, you will never have an opportunity to utilize any information in this article. But if you have to respond to a disciplinary grievance from the commission, answer the grievance timely, deliberately and accurately. Doing so will increase the chances that the informal investigation will not result in a formal charge. As the old saying goes, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” This is especially true in this setting.•

__________

James J. Bell and K. Michael Gaerte are attorneys with Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. They assist lawyers and judges with professional liability and legal ethics issues. They also practice in criminal defense and are regular speakers on criminal defense and ethics topics. They can be reached at jbell@bgdlegal.com or mgaerte@bgdlegal.com. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.

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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT