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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT