ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 6/19/13

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.

Suspension
The Indiana Supreme Court issued a May 30 order suspending more than 300 attorneys for either not paying the annual registration fee required to practice in Indiana, not making the IOLTA certification required and/or failing to comply with certain continuing legal education requirements. Since the order was released, the court has vacated attorneys Hamilton L. Carmouche, Joy McCray Pearson and Douglas Peters from the original listing. Those who do not remedy the reason for their suspension will have their suspensions take effect June 27. The original list may be viewed in the May 30 order at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/2768.htm.

Thomas R. Philpot, of Lake County, has been suspended pendente lite, effective 15 days from the May 30 Supreme Court order. Philpot was found guilty of two counts of mail fraud and one count of theft from a federally funded program. All are felonies.

He was convicted in September 2012 of taking more than $24,000 from federal funds for child support that he oversaw as clerk from December 2004 to November 2009. He was ordered to begin his sentence in February.

Mary K. Kleiss, of Marion County, has been suspended from the practice of law due to disability, per a May 30 order. Kleiss submitted an affidavit of consent to disability suspension. Her suspension took effect immediately, and she may petition for reinstatement upon termination of the disability.

Randy C. Eyster, of Marion County, has been suspended for 90 days, with it all stayed subject to completion of at least two years of probation, per a May 30 order. Eyster pleaded guilty in August 2011 to operating while intoxicated with at least 0.08 grams of alcohol per 210 liter of breath, a Class C misdemeanor. Nearly two years later, he pleaded guilty to OWI endangering a person as a Class C misdemeanor and Class D felony OWI with a previous OWI conviction within five years. He was found to have violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b).

As part of his probation, he must refrain from using alcohol or mind-altering substances except as prescribed and comply with all Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program requirements. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against Eyster. Justice Loretta Rush and Chief Justice Brent Dickson dissent, with Dickson believing that the proposed discipline is significantly inadequate in light of his felony conviction.

Julia N. Compton, of Johnson County, has been suspended for 180 days, with it all stayed subject to the completion of at least two years of probation, per a May 30 order. Compton pleaded guilty in April 2012 in Marion County to misdemeanor public intoxication; in May 2012, she pleaded guilty in Hancock County to misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and public intoxication. She pleaded guilty in October 2012 to Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and was granted alternative misdemeanor sentencing. She was incarcerated for four months, according to the order.

Compton violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b). She must refrain from use of alcohol and mind-altering substances while on probation, follow all Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program requirements, and not violate criminal law or the rules of professional conduct. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against her. Justice Loretta Rush and Chief Justice Brent Dickson dissent, with Dickson believing that the proposed discipline is significantly inadequate in light of Compton’s felony conviction.

Alex R. Voils, of Boone County, has been suspended for 30 days for his handling of a claim for accidental death benefits under a life insurance policy, per a May 30 order. The insurance company denied the claim and Voils did little to press the claim against the insurance company. He was fired, and later failed to timely respond to the Disciplinary Commission’s demand for a response to the grievance filed by the former client.

The order notes that Voils had physical and mental health problems at the time of the misconduct. He was found to have violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.3, 1.16(d) and 8.1(b). The justices also noted that his punishment may have been more severe if not for the commission’s agreement to the proposed discipline.

Voils’ suspension takes effect July 12, and he will be automatically reinstated provided there are no other suspensions in effect. Justice Steven David did not participate.

Shane E. Beal, of Grant County, has been indefinitely suspended in seven separate causes for noncooperation, per a May 30 order. In each of the cases, Beal was ordered to show cause within 10 days, but has still not cooperated in three of the causes. He has responded adequately to the Disciplinary Commission regarding three other causes and responded falsely to the show cause order in the remaining case.

The court also granted the commission’s request that he reimburse the costs in six of the cases in the amount of $512.22 per 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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT