ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 6/5/13

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
Arthur J. Usher IV, of Marion County, has been suspended for three years, per a May 17 order. Rejected romantic advances toward a summer intern led him to have his paralegal email more than 50 attorneys a video clip purporting to depict the former intern nude in a film. Read more on page 20.

Octavia F. Snulligan, of Marion County, has been suspended for at least 30 days without automatic reinstatement, per a May 13 order. She was suspended at the time of this order for noncooperation with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission in a separate action. That suspension has since been terminated due to her cooperation with the commission in that action.

The justices found she violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.5(a) by collecting an unreasonable fee; and 1.16(d) for failure to refund an unearned fee upon termination of representation. Snulligan did not keep any contemporaneous records of the work she did on a criminal case in which her client later terminated her services and sought an itemization of services performed and a refund. The hearing officer found Snulligan did little work to benefit the client and should refund the family at least $5,000.

She may petition for reinstatement upon filing proof that she refunded the client the unearned fees. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against her.

Jeremy S. Brenman, of Monroe County, has been suspended in three separate causes, per May 16 orders. His suspensions are for noncooperation with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. The suspensions take effect immediately, and he is ordered to reimburse the Disciplinary Commission $511.50 for each cause.

Shante P. Henry, of Lake County, has been suspended for noncooperation with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, per a May 16 order. The suspension is effective immediately, and Henry is ordered to reimburse the Disciplinary Commission $511.50 for the costs of the proceeding.

Lisa M. Crawford, of St. Joseph County, has been suspended in Indiana due to her suspension in Illinois, per a May 16 order. Crawford has not responded to a March 5, 2013, order to show cause. The suspension is effectively immediately and the costs of the proceeding are assessed against her.

Public reprimand
Randy A. Godshalk, of Lake County, has received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court in a May 23 order. The justices found he violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.1, 1.7(a), 5.3(b) and 5.5(a). J.B., who was facing criminal charges, went to Godshalk’s office to hire him to represent her. A nonlawyer assistant agreed to the representation, used a rubberstamp for Godshalk’s signature, and filed the appearances. J.B. was allegedly battered by R.M., a client of Godshalk. At the time J.B. came to Godshalk’s office, he should have known that she was a victim and witness in R.M.’s criminal case. Godshalk was eventually disqualified from R.M.’s case and withdrew his representation of J.B.

The justices also found Godshalk’s actions did not conform to Indiana Professional Conduct Guidelines 9.3(a) and 9.3(b) regarding the use of nonlawyer assistants. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

Termination of Suspension
Octavia F. Snulligan, of Marion County, had her suspension in the matter of 49S00-1301-DI-55 terminated as of May 17, according to a May 21 order from the Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a certification of compliance responding Snulligan had cooperated with the investigation in this case. Her suspension ordered in one or more other cases remains in effect, and she can’t be reinstated until all causes for suspension are cured. Her failure to pay any outstanding costs in the case due Oct. 1 will result in suspension.•

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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT