ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 3/30/12-4/12/12

March 28, 2012
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
Carl Brizzi
, of Marion County, received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court March 12, 2012. The justices found that he engaged in attorney misconduct by making public statements as a prosecutor that had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing adjudicative proceedings and a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the criminal defendants. Read more on page 10.

Ayeshah F. Johnson, of Hamilton County, received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court March 13, 2012. Johnson, a solo practitioner, failed to maintain complete trust account records for a five-year period. The justices found Johnson violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.15(a), failure to safeguard property of a client and failure to maintain and preserve complete records of client trust account funds; and 1.15(c) failing to deposit unearned legal fees into client trust account and withdrawing funds from client trust account without earning fees or incurring expenses. She also violated Indiana Admission and Discipline Rules 23(29)(a)(2), failure to maintain and preserve clear record of date, amount, source, and explanation for funds held in trust; and 23(29)(a)(5), making withdrawals from a trust account without written withdrawal authorization stating the amount and purpose of the withdrawal and the payee, and making withdrawals from a trust account by checks payable to “cash.”

The costs of the proceeding were assessed against Johnson.

Suspension
Beau White
, of Grant County, has been suspended for 60 days by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order dated March 13, 2012. White was hired in a paternity action, but took no action on the case and did not refund the money to the client. The justices found White violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.2(a), failure to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation; 1.3, failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. 1.4(a), failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and respond promptly to reasonable requests for information; and 1.16(d), failure to refund an unearned fee upon termination of representation.

Because of White’s failure to respond in any way to the Disciplinary Commission’s complaint, he is required to demonstrate his fitness before being reinstated. White’s suspension begins April 20.

Thomas N. Nuttle, of Elkhart County, has been suspended, effective immediately, by the Indiana Supreme Court for noncooperation with the Disciplinary Commission, per a March 15, 2012, order. This suspension shall continue until: (1) the executive secretary of the Disciplinary Commission certifies to the court that Nuttle has cooperated fully with the investigation; (2) the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or (3) until further order of this court, provided there are no other suspensions in effect. Nuttle is already under a suspension for continuing legal education noncompliance. He has been ordered to reimburse $569.67 in costs.

James D. Nafe Jr., of St. Joseph County, has been suspended, effective immediately, by the Indiana Supreme Court for noncooperation with the Disciplinary Commission, per a March 15, 2012, order. This suspension shall continue until: (1) the executive secretary of the Disciplinary Commission certifies to the court that Nafe has cooperated fully with the investigation; (2) the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or (3) until further order of this court, provided there are no other suspensions then in effect. He has been ordered to reimburse $522.16 in costs.

Diamond Z. Hirschauer, of Marion County, has been suspended, effective immediately, by the Indiana Supreme Court for noncooperation with the Disciplinary Commission, per a March 15, 2012 order. This suspension shall continue until: (1) the executive secretary of the Disciplinary Commission certifies to the court that Hirschauer has cooperated fully with the investigation; (2) the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or (3) until further order of this court, provided there are no other suspensions in effect. Hirschauer has been ordered to reimburse $543.74 in costs.•

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT