ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 11/9/12

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.

Public reprimand
Martin A. McCloskey, of Elkhart County, has been publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court, per an Oct. 24 order. The reprimand is due to his handling of an appeal and petition seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 for D.H. in 2007. McCloskey had no experience with either procedure. The appeal was dismissed in 2008 and D.H.’s daughter terminated McCloskey’s representation before the Section 2255 petition was filed.

McCloskey had no disciplinary history, was cooperative with the disciplinary commission, and has a practice of refunding any unused portion of any advanced payment.

The justices found he violated Ind. Professional Conduct Rules 1.1: failure to provide competent representation; 1.3: failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; 1.5(a): charging an unreasonable fee; and 3.2: failure to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of a client. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against McCloskey.

Suspension
Anna E. Fulkerson, of Allen County, has been suspended without automatic reinstatement after the Indiana Supreme Court revoked her probationary reinstatement to the practice of law, per an Oct. 18 order.

Fulkerson was suspended without automatic reinstatement in October 2009; she petitioned for reinstatement in October 2010, which was granted in 2011 subject to completion of at least two years of probation on terms determined by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.

The disciplinary commission sought to have her probation revoked this year, alleging that she materially violated terms of the JLAP monitoring agreement, including not participating in monthly therapy sessions or signing a release to allow JLAP staff to obtain a report from her pain management specialist.

Fulkerson responded that she had been laid off from her minimum wage job, is seeking a job, and cooperates with JLAP on areas that do not involve financial obligations. The justices imposed the suspension after finding that she did not sign the release for JLAP to contact the pain management specialist. The suspension begins Nov. 30, and the costs of the proceeding are assessed against her.

Janice R. Gambill, of Porter County, has had her suspension date moved to Nov. 26, 2012, per an Oct. 18 order from the Supreme Court. She sought to stay the execution of the disciplinary action and reconsideration of her suspension. The justices ordered Gambill suspended for no less than six months, without automatic reinstatement, beginning Oct. 19.

Gambill was disciplined over her representation of a client in a legal malpractice action. Any response by the disciplinary commission to her motion to reconsider had to be filed by Nov. 5.•

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT