ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 6/22/12

IL Staff
June 20, 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.

Suspension
Antolin J. Reiber, of Marion County, has been suspended for six months by the Indiana Supreme Court, per a June 5, 2012, order. The justices found Reiber violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.16(d): failure to refund an unearned fee promptly upon termination of representation; 1.8(j): engaging in a sexual relationship with a client unless it began prior to the representation; 1.16(a)(1): failure to withdraw from representation when the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; and 8.1(b): failure to respond in a timely manner to the commission’s demands for information.

The charges stem from two counts: Reiber initially refusing to refund a client’s advance payment after he was terminated as the client’s attorney and for having a sexual relationship with a different client he was representing in a protective order case. Although Reiber has not been disciplined previously for misconduct, he has had a history of noncooperation with the disciplinary commission. Previous disciplinary matters had all been dismissed. The suspension begins July 17, the costs of the proceedings are assessed against him, and Reiber may not be automatically reinstated.

Jacob A. Atanga, of Marion County, has had his suspension for noncooperation converted into an indefinite suspension, effective immediately, for failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process, per a June 5, 2012, Indiana Supreme Court order. Atanga was suspended in February for noncooperation under one pending disciplinary matter and was ordered to show cause in two other matters earlier this year. The disciplinary commission noted that Atanga has since cooperated with the commission, but objected to the lifting of his suspension based on his history of noncooperation. The other two matters from earlier this year have been dismissed as moot given his indefinite suspension.

Kristin D. Miller, of Marion County, has been suspended for noncooperation, per a June 6, 2012, Indiana Supreme Court order. The justices ordered Miller to show cause in February as to why she should not be immediately suspended from the practice of law. Her suspension begins immediately and she is ordered to reimburse the disciplinary commission $511.18.

Reinstatement
Louis W. Denney, of Delaware County, has been reinstated in Indiana, per a June 5, 2012, Indiana Supreme Court order. The justices ordered his suspension May 25 for failing to pay costs assessed in a disciplinary action by Oct. 1, the due date of his annual registration fee.•

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