ILNews

Court sanctions Indianapolis attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis attorney has received a public reprimand in the third and final leg of a yearlong disciplinary triangle, which has led to a Marion Superior judge's suspension and a commissioner's resignation and banishment from the bench.

In an order dated March 13, a split Indiana Supreme Court voted 3-2 to issue a public reprimand to Carolyn W. Rader as part of a conditional agreement in the disciplinary action against her. Justice Frank Sullivan would have rejected the agreement because he finds the sanction insufficient, while Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wanted a short suspension.

The court decided that Rader violated Professional Conduct Rule 1.4(a)(2), which requires a lawyer to consult reasonably with a client about the means by which the client's objectives are being accomplished. The Disciplinary Commission filed charges against Rader in July, about three months after the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission had filed misconduct charges against Marion Superior Judge Grant W. Hawkins and his then-commissioner Nancy Broyles relating to the same post-conviction case.

All three actions came as a result of the legal drama involving Harold Buntin, who spent 22 months in prison after DNA evidence had cleared him of a 1984 rape. He'd petitioned for relief in 1998 based on DNA evidence that wasn't available during his trial that he hoped would clear him; it eventually did in 2005. But Broyles took that case under advisement after a March 2005 hearing and ultimately didn't rule on it for more than a year. When Buntin received no word from the court or his attorney Rader, despite his and his family's repeated attempts to get an answer, he contacted the commission to investigate the reason for the delay in early 2007.

The judicial disciplinary commission investigated and discovered that Judge Hawkins' lack of court supervision resulted in case delays leading to Buntin's longer incarceration, while Broyles had a history of delays on this and other post-conviction cases.

She resigned last year and has been permanently banned from the bench as a result of this case. A divided Indiana Supreme Court last week decided an unpaid suspension was the most appropriate sanction for Judge Hawkins.

Now, Rader receives a public reprimand that two of the justices find to be inadequate.

"While the judge and magistrate who held the matter under advisement for two years bear the principal responsibility, Respondent's stewardship of the client's interest was a part of the overall fault," Chief Justice Shepard wrote. "My colleagues say that there is no way to know whether this failure to communicate with her client Harold Buntin and his family would have hastened a ruling and shortened the time wrongly spent in prison. I would like to think that the Court is wrong about that, and that a reasonable responsiveness to the client would have led to use of the tools available for obtaining a ruling."

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT