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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT