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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT