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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT