ILNews

Bloomington attorney enters into plea agreement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A jury trial set for this week for a Monroe County attorney accused of stealing money from clients has been cancelled because a plea agreement has been reached.

Philip H. Chamberlain was charged in 2008 with two counts of fraudulent sale of securities, one count of forgery, one count of sale of unregistered securities, and one count of unregistered investment advisor, all as Class C felonies. Bloomington police arrested Chamberlain in May 2008 on charges of misconduct involving his clients and violations of Indiana’s Securities Act.

According to the Office of the Indiana Secretary of State, a client of Chamberlain sought legal advice related to investing in rental properties. Chamberlain allegedly suggested his client loan Chamberlain and other people money for the development of a golf course and construction of a home in Lawrence County. Chamberlain never invested the money and was accused of stealing most of it. He allegedly forged an endorsement signature on one of the client’s checks and then deposited that check into his bank account.

Chamberlain has been a lawyer in Indiana since 1990 and has no history of discipline, according to the Roll of Attorneys. He has been practicing law since the charges were filed.

Chamberlain and the state negotiated a plea agreement, where one count of fraudulent sale of securities has been amended to a Class D felony counterfeiting charge, to which Chamberlain will plead. He will have to pay restitution on all counts based on the plea agreement. A restitution hearing will be set at a later date.

A sentencing hearing on the Class D felony counterfeiting charge has been set for 10 a.m. Jan. 3.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT