ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 2/27/13

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.

Suspension
Kristin D. Miller, of Marion County, has been suspended indefinitely for noncooperation with the Disciplinary Commission, per a Feb. 1 order. Miller was initially suspended June 6, 2012, for noncooperation, and the Disciplinary Commission moved for the suspension to be converted to indefinite due to Miller’s lack of response.

Miller’s suspension became effective the date of the order.

Timothy S. Durham, of Marion County, had his law license suspended Feb. 14 by the Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana Supreme Court ordered Durham suspended pendente lite effective immediately. He was originally admitted to the bar in 1987.

Durham was convicted in June 2012 of 12 felony fraud charges and sentenced to 50 years for his role in a Ponzi scheme that defrauded Ohio investors out of $250 million. The charges stemmed from the collapse of Fair Finance Co. in Akron, Ohio, in which Durham was a co-owner.

Public reprimand
Roberta L. Ross, of Marion County, has been publicly reprimanded for how she handled the settlement of a lawsuit stemming from an explosion at a Central Soya plant in Indianapolis in 1994.

The Feb. 12 order says that Ross violated the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules (2003): 1.2(a): Failure to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation, to consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued, or to abide by a client’s decision whether to accept an offer of settlement of a matter; 1.4(b): Failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions; and 1.8(g): Participating in making an aggregate settlement regarding two or more clients unless each client consents after adequate consultation and disclosure.

After reaching a confidential settlement agreement, she created a formula for determining how to distribute the funds without consulting the clients.

The hearing officer found many factors in Ross’ favor, including that she has no history of misconduct, is genuinely remorseful for her misconduct, and has a long history of pro bono activities. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against her.•
 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT