ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 4/27/12

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.

Contempt
Danny Ray Hill, of St. Joseph County, has been found in contempt of court by the Indiana Supreme Court for practicing law in Indiana while suspended. The justices ordered on March 30, 2012, that Hill pay $250 within 60 days of the order.

Hill was suspended indefinitely in Indiana in 2006; in 2008, he sent a letter to a couple in Illinois on letterhead with a South Bend address identifying himself as an attorney. He indicated that he had reviewed living trust and related documents prepared for the couple and advised them on the legality and effectiveness of the documents. Even though the couple was in Illinois, Hill’s actions were in Indiana.

Timothy D. Freeman, of Marion County, has been ordered by the Indiana Supreme Court to pay a $2,500 fine and disgorge a $500 retainer fee within 10 days of April 3, 2012, or he will be ordered to serve a 30-day imprisonment.

Freeman has been the subject of five show cause proceedings for noncooperation with the Disciplinary Commission. He has continued to practice law in seven cases after he was suspended. Justice Steven David believed a longer imprisonment should be required. Justice Mark Massa did not participate.

William J. Rawls, of Marion County, has been found guilty by the Indiana Supreme Court of indirect criminal contempt by practicing law while disbarred. In an April 10, 2012, order, the justices ordered Rawls be sentenced to seven days imprisonment in the Department of Correction, without the benefit of good time; and pay a $500 fine within 60 days of this order.

Rawls was disbarred Dec. 27, 2010, but in February 2011 he had completed an appearance on behalf of another attorney, signed the attorney’s name on the appearance form and placed the initials “BW” next to the signature. He did not respond to an order to show cause.

Suspension
Mark J. Thornburg, of Marion County, has been suspended for 90 days, all stayed subject to completion of 24 months of probation, per an April 10, 2012, order from the Indiana Supreme Court. The discipline is effective April 28.

Thornburg pleaded guilty shortly after passing the bar exam in 1998 to operating a vehicle with a BAC of 0.08 to 0.15, a Class C misdemeanor. He reported the incident and was sworn in later that year. In 2011, he pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated with endangerment. He notified the Disciplinary Commission of the conviction.

He violated Rule 8.4(b), but mitigating factors are that Thornburg met with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program shortly after his arrest, has no disciplinary history, and has been cooperative with the commission.

Reinstatement
Barbara L. Barkas, of Marion County, has been reinstated to the practice of law in Indiana as of April 3, 2012, per an order from the Indiana Supreme Court, as long as there are no other suspensions in effect. She had been suspended for failure to cooperate with a disciplinary case.•

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT