ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 7/20/12

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
Sarah Nagy, of Hamilton County, has been suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court due to a physical disability, per a June 28, 2012, order. Nagy had two show cause proceedings for noncooperation with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission pending, which were dismissed without prejudice. Nagy is suspended immediately and may petition for reinstatement upon termination of the disability.

John L. Stewart, of Marion County, has been suspended pendente lite by the Indiana Supreme Court per a July 5, 2012, order. Stewart was found guilty of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a prior conviction. The interim suspension will continue until further order of the court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect. Justices Frank Sullivan and Robert Rucker preferred to deny the request for interim suspension and set a deadline to advance the case.

Resignation
William F. Conour, of Marion County, has resigned from the bar, according to a June 29, 2012, Indiana Supreme Court order. A verified complaint for disciplinary action was filed against Conour in May. He also faces a wire fraud charge in federal court and is accused of misappropriating more $2.5 million of client money. His resignation ends any disciplinary proceedings against him. Conour may not petition for reinstatement for five years.

Discipline modification
Beau J. White, of Grant County, has had his suspension terms modified by the Indiana Supreme Court, per a July 9, 2012, order. White was suspended in March for no less than 60 days without automatic reinstatement, with the suspension to begin April 20. He petitioned for the court to reconsider his discipline sanctions, and the justices found White demonstrated sufficient grounds for modification. His suspension order has been revised to: a suspension for 180 days, beginning April 20, with at least 60 days actively served and the remainder stayed subject to completion of at least 24 months of probation. He must meet certain terms to comply with probation, including entering into a monitoring agreement with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. The remainder of the original order is still in effect.•

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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT