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A top executive of Celadon Group Inc. can no longer represent himself as the Indianapolis-based trucking company's attorney because of a glaring omission - he is not licensed to practice law in Indiana.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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT