ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 6/8/12

June 6, 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.

Reinstatement
James D. Nafe Jr., of St. Joseph County, has been reinstated to the practice of law in two separate disciplinary actions. Nafe had been suspended for noncooperation. He was reinstated May 2, 2012, based on two orders released from the Indiana Supreme Court May 15.

Suspension
Harlan L. Vondersaar II, of Hendricks County, has been suspended for 90 days by the Indiana Supreme Court, per a May 16, 2012, order. The suspension is effective 20 days from the date of the order. Vondersaar was conditionally admitted to the bar pursuant to a consent agreement with the state Board of Law Examiners that he refrain from using alcohol and have no arrests for criminal offenses. On Oct. 3, 2011, he notified the board that he had been arrested for drunk driving and later pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated with endangerment.

Following his suspension, Vondersaar shall be automatically reinstated to conditional admission for five years pursuant to the terms of a consent agreement signed May 5, 2011, and he shall comply in all respects with Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program monitoring or treatment programs.

Kjell P. Engebretsen, of Boone County, has had his suspension for noncooperation converted into an indefinite suspension, per an Indiana Supreme Court order on May 25. Engebretsen was initially suspended Sept. 2, 2011.

Louis W. Denney, of Delaware County, and Deborah D. Julian (Kubley), of Johnson County, have been suspended for failure to pay costs, per a May 25 Supreme Court order. The suspensions are effective 10 days from the date of the order.

Lawrence Todd Newman has been suspended from practice for 18 months in Ohio, per the Supreme Court of Ohio. His suspension is reciprocal discipline based on Newman’s suspension in Indiana, which was effective Jan. 31.

Charges dismissed
The Indiana Supreme Court has dismissed petitions for suspension for failure to satisfy costs against Lindsay T. Boyd, Bradley D. Hamilton, Neil C. Thomas and Gregory A. Watkins, per a May 25 order.

Public reprimand
Julia E. Dimick, of Marion County, has received a public reprimand for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d), per a May 25 order from the Indiana Supreme Court. According to the order, Dimick sent a letter to the opposing party’s counsel implying she would file a grievance with the Disciplinary Commission against that attorney unless the attorney made a settlement offer.

Resignation
Charles R. Hyde Jr., of Wayne County, has resigned from the bar, per a May 25 order from the Indiana Supreme Court accepting his resignation.

Correction
The Indiana Supreme Court has corrected its April 10, 2012, suspension order of Mark J. Thornburg. His suspension date should have read April 28, 2011.•

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT