ILNews

Blogger attorney Ogden grilled in public discipline hearing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Publicly resigned to the likelihood that action will be taken against his law license, attorney Paul Ogden was grilled for hours Tuesday in his hearing before the Indiana Disciplinary Commission.   

Ogden is accused of violating Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2 for comments made in private emails about a judge. He also is accused of violating rules 2.9 and 8.4(d) for sending a letter to Marion Superior judges regarding asset distribution in civil forfeiture cases. Ogden says U.S. Supreme Court rulings offer attorneys the same protection as the public regarding speech, except in instances where the speech could impact the administration of justice.

On the stand, Ogden said Rule 8.2 “isn’t about stifling criticism of an elected judge. … I have a right to speak the truth about what happened.” But opposing witnesses testified that Ogden stood by critical remarks even after he was informed they were untrue.

Near the close of the almost 12-hour proceeding, hearing officer Robert York posed to Ogden several hypotheticals about attorney speech. York asked the extent to which statements like those he made regarding Hendricks Superior Judge David Coleman could be regulated under the rules.

“The Supreme Court has no authority to enforce the rules to infringe on my free speech rights,” Ogden said.

“Do any of these rules apply to you?” York asked at one point, holding up a copy of the professional conduct code. Seeming exasperated, Ogden said of course they did, but they “can’t be used to infringe my free speech.”

Coleman testified that he obtained copies of emails Ogden sent to opposing counsel in a trust case when someone left them behind in a file in court. Among other things, Ogden wrote that Coleman “should be turned in to the disciplinary commission for how he handled this case. If this case would have been in Marion County with a real probate court with a real judge, the stuff that went on with this case never would have happened.” Ogden claimed, among other things, that the estate’s value dwindled from about $1 million to almost nothing due to improper oversight.

Ogden also claimed that Coleman was friends with family members involved in the trust and should have recused himself, an allegation Coleman said he told Ogden was false. Ogden eventually had Coleman, the second judge in the five-year-long trust case, removed through a “lazy judge” motion.

“I had no conflict,” Coleman testified.

Disciplinary Commission attorney Seth Pruden asked Coleman, “As far as you know, are those emails true or false?” Coleman responded, “As far as I know, they’re false.”

“I don’t know of anything I did wrong on this case,” Coleman testified. He said after Ogden “attacked my integrity,” he sent Ogden a letter pointing out several remarks that were untrue. “I sent him a letter and asked him simply to apologize.”

But Ogden refused, repeating the errors that he said the judge had made in the estate case. Coleman then sent the emails to the commission, noting it was the first time in a long career that he had done so against an attorney. “He didn’t retract them,” Coleman said of Ogden’s comments. Had Ogden apologized or retracted the comments, Coleman testified, “I just wouldn’t have sent the letter.”

Ogden’s attorney, Adam Lenkowsky of Roberts & Bishop, repeatedly stressed that the comments were in private emails and said the comments only became public when the commission filed a verified complaint against Ogden.  

Lenkowsky recounted problems with the estate such as disbursements made without court approval. The opposing attorney on the trust case, Steven Harris of Mooresville, denied there were problems with the estate and instead characterized questionable disbursements as honest mistakes that were repaid when discovered. Coleman acknowledged under cross-examination that he had not filed notice of an estate open longer than one year.

Harris represented the estate of Robert P. Carr that was administered by his son, Robert Jr. Ogden represented another heir in the estate, Robert P. Carr’s son, Randy Carr.

The hearing featured testimony from Robert Carr Jr. about his handling of the estate, and from Randy Carr, now serving a 20-year executed sentence at the New Castle Correctional Annex for dealing methamphetamine.

Shackled, in prison scrubs and escorted into the hearing by sheriff’s deputies, Randy Carr repeated accusations that Coleman was a friend of his family who’d joined his father at Christmas parties in the past, and that his father had millions of dollars squirreled away. Robert Carr Jr. testified none of those accusations were true and that his brother has “issues.”

But Randy Carr had informed Harris of conflicts he said Coleman had, and Harris conveyed those concerns to Coleman. The judge declined to recuse himself, saying he could find no conflict. Randy Carr said the judge also denied his request for an outside accounting of the estate.

When Lenkowsky sought to limit questions about Randy Carr’s past drug use, he alarmed Pruden when he volunteered that he also was representing the witness in his post-conviction relief petition. Pruden appealed to York for time to process information he said he was hearing for the first time. York granted him 90 seconds.

Pruden also grilled Ogden on the stand about how he handled his representation of Randy Carr in the estate case. Ogden acknowledged that he never obtained a chronological case summary. He also acknowledged that he was unaware when he criticized Coleman for failing to require a supervised trust or bond that those conditions had been put in place by a prior judge on the case who had recused himself.

“That’s what I believed to be true,” Ogden said of his criticism of Coleman. “That was inaccurate, yes.”

Ogden said he didn’t file a motion seeking Coleman’s disqualification because the judge already had ruled based on his client’s complaint. He also said the judge could have acted to better protect the interests of the estate.

York challenged Ogden on why he didn’t file motions on those matters and asked him to show a case in which a judge had issued such orders sua sponte. “It doesn’t happen,” York said.

Separately, Marion Superior Judge Patrick McCarty testified that he forwarded Ogden’s letter regarding asset distribution in forfeiture cases after he received it unsolicited. He said he feared the letter could be considered ex parte, so he forwarded it to the commission. Lenkowsky asked if McCarty received other unsolicited legal opinions, and he acknowledged he did such as law firm email circulars distributed to judges. Asked if those might also violate rules, he said they might, but he acknowledged he had not reported those.

York asked attorneys to file findings of fact and conclusions of law within 30 days of the completion of the hearing record. Afterward, York will file his report to the Indiana Supreme Court which will determine what disciplinary action, if any, will be rendered.




 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Dang it, Paul
    We've been friends for 15 years, but be quiet. You will only dig the hole deeper.
  • Sua Sponte Orders
    "York challenged Ogden on why he didn’t file motions on those matters and asked him to show a case in which a judge had issued such orders sua sponte." “It doesn’t happen,” York said. York has obviously never practice probate law in Marion County because the court here automatically notices the attorney and personal representative when the one-year deadline for closing an unsupervised estate occurs and orders it scheduled for a show cause hearing unless the estate's attorney beats him to the punch and files a motion for additional time showing good cause for keeping the estate open for a particular period of time beyond the one-year closing deadline. The court continues to track cases open for more than one year and will notice the parties again and again, requiring them to show good cause for the estate to be kept open until it is eventually closed.
  • Answer
    Gary, during the pendency of the estate hundreds of thousands of dollars fgenerated by rental property and the sale of real estate flowed into the estate In the end (about six years after the estate opened) the three residual beneficiaries only received $8,000 apiece (the also did get a portion of an LLC.) The attorney made over $40,000 on the estate.
    • Fees v Distribution
      Paul, I think it would be useful to put this case in perspective if you reported how much Mr. Harris billed the estate versus the total amount that was distributed to the heirs upon the closing of it.
    • Another Clarification
      "York challenged Ogden on why he didn’t file motions on those matters..." Actually I did file several things to bring to the attention of the court problems associated with the estate, argued them at hearings, and was unsuccessful getting the judge to take action. I fought and fought and fought for my client and really for the other heirs who also constantly complained about how the estate was being handled.
    • Clarification
      "Ogden also claimed that Coleman was friends with family members..." Good thorough article but I would point out that I was saying what my client had told me, which was confirmed independently by another witness.
    • judges not above criticism
      So it would seem that perhaps Judges are behind the overuse of 8.2 and this case is front and center exhibit of it. I applaud Paul Ogden. Should other lawyers come under more needless opprobrium due to the misuse of 8.2 that would really backfire on judges who know that they are not above legitimate criticism. Let's have free speech for lawyers. Let's have it for judges too by the way, there's been a bad trend to "de-politicize" the judicial appointment process, to chill the free expression of ideas, to remove the electorate and transfer it all over to socalled merit based appointment. Let's get away from neutering the practice of law. We are not just masses of witless, cublicle dwelling, clock-punching bureaucrats.

    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. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

    2. A high ranking bureaucrat with Ind sup court is heading up an organization celebrating the formal N word!!! She must resign and denounce! http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

    3. ND2019, don't try to confuse the Left with facts. Their ideologies trump facts, trump due process, trump court rules, even trump federal statutes. I hold the proof if interested. Facts matter only to those who are not on an agenda-first mission.

    4. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

    5. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

    ADVERTISEMENT