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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT