ILNews

Court reprimands attorneys for trade-name use

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three attorneys who practiced separately but advertised as an LLC were publicly reprimand by the Indiana Supreme Court for violating several Indiana Professional Conduct Rules by not letting clients know they didn't practice law as a firm.

The Supreme Court combined the disciplinary actions against J. Michael Loomis, Robert A. Grubbs, and Robert J. Wray into one order posted May 8 and agreed a public reprimand was the appropriate discipline for violating Rules 7.2(b), and 7.5(a) and (b). The sanction was consistent with discipline imposed in other cases involving misleading attorney communications.
 
Loomis, Grubbs, and Wray, along with another attorney who is not a respondent in this action, formed "Attorneys of Aboite, LLC," named after a township in Allen County. The three represented clients individually and didn't practice as a firm; all three used the names "Attorneys of Aboite, LLC" and "Attorneys of Aboite" in professional documents, communications, advertisements, signage, telephone directory listings, and a Web site without revealing they didn't practice law as a firm.

The State Board of Law Examiners never issued a certificate of registration for those names; the attorneys stopped using the name in October 2008.

The Supreme Court found the attorneys' use of "Attorneys of Aboite, LLC" and "Attorneys of Aboite" to be improper because a lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a trade name. The use of "LLC" implied that the attorneys were practicing law together as a LLC and not as individuals just sharing office facilities. Using an LLC in a name implies the LLC maintains adequate professional liability insurance or other forms of adequate financial responsibility for the protections of clients and that the State Board of Law Examiners investigated the LLC and certified it, according to the order.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT