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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT