Disciplinary actions - 5/8/13

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.

David E. Schalk, of Monroe County, has been suspended for at least nine months by the Indiana Supreme Court, per an April 15 order. The justices found Schalk violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) by committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; and 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Schalk illegally attempted a drug sting without the assistance of law enforcement in order to impeach a witness’s credibility at his client’s trial. Schalk was found guilty of Class A misdemeanor attempt to possess marijuana, which was upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals in 2011.

His suspension begins May 24 and he must petition for reinstatement. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against Schalk.

Bruce A. Carr, of Porter County, has been suspended indefinitely by the Indiana Supreme Court, per an April 19 order. Carr is admitted to practice in Indiana and Illinois and was suspended from practice in Illinois for nine months beginning Dec. 10, 2012. The reciprocal discipline took effect April 19 and the costs of the proceeding are assessed against Carr. If he is reinstated in Illinois, he may file a motion to be reinstated in Indiana.

Mark E. Watson, of Vigo County, has been suspended for at least 18 months by the Indiana Supreme Court, per an April 19 order. Watson admitted to five counts of misconduct occurring from 2009 to 2011, including making unauthorized charges for personal use of the law firm’s credit card and converting client funds. Watson has violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) by committing criminal conversion, and by committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; and 8.4(c) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

His suspension begins May 31 and he must petition for reinstatement. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against Watson. Chief Justice Brent Dickson dissented, believing the agreed punishment is insufficient in light of the admitted misconduct.

The Indiana Supreme Court entered judgment for Robert L. Canada, of Vanderburgh County, in a disciplinary case pending against the attorney in an April 26 order. The Disciplinary Commission alleged that Canada violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.5(a): making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an unreasonable fee; and 1.16(d): failure to refund fees that have not been earned.

A client hired Canada to represent him on a charge of Class A felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine. They agreed to a flat fee of $10,000 to be paid from a cash bond. After being offered a plea agreement to a Class B felony, the client hired a different attorney to try to get a better plea. Canada withdrew as attorney, and the trial court later released $10,000 of the cash bond for his fee.

The hearing officer concluded that the fee agreement was reasonable. The justices concluded that the Disciplinary Commission didn’t prove by clear and convincing evidence that Canada did not fully earn his flat fee.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.