Disciplinary Actions - 2/26/14

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.

Reciprocal Discipline
Kent D. Mitchner, has been suspended for 30 days, all stayed subject to probation as imposed by the Supreme Court of Kentucky, per a Feb. 3 Indiana Supreme Court order. Mitchner was suspended in Kentucky effective Aug. 29 for 30 days, probated for one year with conditions. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

Public reprimand
Scott Storms, of Marion County, has received a public reprimand for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.11(d). Storms was general counsel and chief administrative law judge at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, where he heard matters involving Duke Energy Indiana Inc. He resigned from the IURC when formally offered a job at Duke. A state ethics investigation led to a $12,120 fine for violating I.C. 4-2-6-9 and a ban from future employment with the state.

The justices found several mitigating factors, including the fine and employment ban. The order notes that the discipline imposed may have been more severe had this matter been submitted without the commission’s agreement to a public reprimand.

Randall B. Stiles, of Allen County, has been suspended for noncooperation effective immediately, per two Feb. 3 orders. Stiles filed objections to the Disciplinary Commission’s requests for ruling and to tax costs, in which the court found no merit. The suspension will remain in effect until Stiles cooperates with the commission, the disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of, or until further order of the court. He is ordered to reimburse the Disciplinary Commission $1,048.88 in costs.

Amanda A. Johnson, of Madison County, has been suspended for noncooperation, effectively immediately, per a Feb. 4 order. The suspension shall continue until she fully cooperates with the Disciplinary Commission, the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of, or until further order of the court. She is ordered to reimburse the Disciplinary Commission $524.44 in costs.

Thomas L. Montgomery, of Vanderburgh County, has been suspended for at least one year, without automatic reinstatement, per a Feb. 3 order. The order lists five counts, including becoming involved in a personal relationship with a former client and purchasing a gun for her, knowing she was a convicted felon. The order also says that Montgomery falsely told colleagues that he had a life-threatening brain tumor.

He has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and has been working with the Judges and Lawyers Monitoring Program. There is a cyst on his brain, but it is not a brain tumor.

The justices found Montgomery has violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.3; 1.4(a)(3); 5.3(b); 8.4(b); 8.4(c); and 8.4(d).

Montgomery has been suspended since 2008 for CLE noncompliance and dues nonpayment. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

Gary L. Dilk, of Marion County, has been suspended for at least six months, without automatic reinstatement, per a Feb. 10 order. The suspension takes effect March 24. The justices found he violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.4(a); 1.4(b); 1.8(f); 3.2; 5.4(a); 5.4(c); 5.5(a); 7.3(e); and 8.4(d). The nine counts of misconduct concern Dilk’s representation of clients referred to him by Ohio-based for-profit Foreclosure Solutions LLC and by other organizations and his serving as “of counsel” in Indiana foreclosure actions for an Ohio law firm.

He received approximately 2,675 referrals from Foreclosures Solutions. His typical practice was to allow judgment to be entered without opposition or hearing, and he had no direct contact with many of his clients. He asserted to the Disciplinary Commission that the homeowners were not his clients, to which the order says “shows a lack of insight into his professional responsibilities to the homeowners for whom he appeared as counsel, asserting that his professional duties were owed to the companies who hired him, not to homeowners.”

Terrance L. Kinnard, of Marion County, has been suspended for at least six months, without automatic reinstatement, per a Feb. 10 order. The charges stem in part from false statements he made in April 2008 on a petition to modify custody and to find a mother in contempt. Kinnard also filed a defamation suit against the mother, who filed a grievance against him, seeking more than $100,000 and attorney fees. The mother and respondent filed a joint motion to dismiss in August 2008.

The justices found he violated Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 3.5(b), 3.1, 4.4(a) and 8.4(d). The suspension begins March 24, and the costs of the proceeding are assessed against Kinnard.

Robert B. Bush, of Johnson County, has been suspended effective immediately, per a Feb. 13 order. Bush has been found guilty of felony stalking and invasion of privacy. The interim suspension shall continue until further order of the court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect.

Jennifer L. Graham, of Marion County, has been suspended for 60 days, beginning Feb. 14, per an order from the Supreme Court. The suspension is stayed subject to completion of at least two years of probation, including monitoring with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. The justices found she violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) when she wrote two checks from her client trust account payable to herself and deposited into her operating account to cover losses she incurred from gambling. She has since repaid the $1,100 she converted from her client trust account.

Graham admits she is a compulsive gambler and has taken steps to address her addiction. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against her.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well