ILNews

Disciplinary Action; June 8, 2011

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Disciplinary Actions

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission brings charges against attorneys who have violated the state’s rules for admission to the bar and Rules of Professional Conduct. The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications brings charges against judges, judicial officers, or judicial candidates for misconduct. Details of attorneys’ and judges’ actions for which they are being disciplined by the Supreme Court will be included unless they are not a matter of public record under the court’s rules.

Barred From Practice
Joshua S. Parilman of Arizona has been barred indefinitely from practicing law in Indiana, including temporary admission and solicitation of clients, until further order of the court, in a Supreme Court order filed May 27, 2011. Parilman practices law in Arizona and is not licensed in Indiana. In 2010, he advertised his practice on radio stations broadcasting in Indiana as a national firm that specialized in automobile accidents. The court found he violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct: Falsely representing that the attorney is admitted to practice in Indiana; Using a public communication containing false, misleading and/or deceptive statements; Making a statement that contains a representation or implication that is likely to cause an ordinary prudent person to misunderstand or be deceived; and, Making a statement of specialization when not authorized.

Contempt of Court/Fine
Richard M. Bash of Hot Springs, Ark., has been held in contempt of court and fined $500 in a Supreme Court order filed May 27, 2011. Bash was suspended from the practice of law in Indiana beginning March 21, 2008. In May 2009, he represented a friend whose house had been damaged. By holding himself out as an attorney and practicing law while suspended, the court determined Bash was in violation and in contempt of the court’s order. Because the misconduct did not appear to be ongoing, the court concluded that a $500 fine is sufficient discipline.

Resignation
Monty B. Arvin of Howard County resigned from the bar, pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17). The Supreme Court accepted Arvin’s resignation in an order filed May 27, 2011. Arvin is ineligible to petition for reinstatement to the practice of law in Indiana for five years.•

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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT