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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT