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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT