ILNews

Court issues UPL ruling about 'general counsel'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Disciplinary Actions


A top executive of Celadon Group Inc. can no longer represent himself as the Indianapolis-based trucking company's attorney because of a glaring omission - he is not licensed to practice law in Indiana.

Kenneth L. Core, who used the title of "vice president of risk management and general counsel" in letters and electronic correspondence, is prohibited from practicing in the state until he obtains a law license, according to a March 12, 2010, Indiana Supreme Court order.

Core, who earned $191,584 in total compensation last year, is Celadon's fifth-highest-paid executive, according to the company's most recent proxy statement. His formal title is vice president and secretary.

The Supreme Court order stems from an Oct. 22 filing from the state's Disciplinary Commission alleging Core had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Core agreed to a settlement, in which he is prohibited from "holding himself out as 'counsel,' 'general counsel,' or any other title suggesting his status as an attorney licensed in Indiana to provide legal advice and legal services ... unless and until such time as he obtains a license to practice law in Indiana."

He formerly practiced law in Iowa between 1975 and 1993. The state suspended his law license in 1993 for failing to pay the annual license fee and for failing to comply with continuing legal education requirements, the Supreme Court order said.

Core admitted to the Disciplinary Commission that he is not licensed to practice in Indiana and provided evidence that Celadon was aware that he lacked the credentials to do so.

Paul Will, Celadon's vice chairman and chief financial officer, referred to Core's mistake as a "misunderstanding."

"The resolution is that he just needs to get his CLE credits in Iowa so that he can get his Indiana [law] license," he said. "It's kind of a slap-on-the-wrist formality."

Will further said that an individual who had a dispute with the company pressed the issue and filed the complaint.

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT