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. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. 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?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT