ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 7/6/12

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.

Disbarment
Douglas W. Patterson, of Vanderburgh County, has been disbarred following his guilty plea to stealing from clients, per a June 20, 2012, Indiana Supreme Court order. Patterson, who has previous disciplinary actions and was suspended at the time of the disbarment, pleaded guilty in 2011 to three counts of Class D felony theft of client funds. The justices found he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Suspension
Ryan L. Strup, of Marion County, has been suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court for violating conditions of his probation by consuming alcohol, per a June 20, 2012, order. In December 2011, the justices approved a conditional agreement that suspended Strup for 90 days, all stayed subject to the completion of at least two years of probation with monitoring by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.

His suspension, which is without automatic reinstatement, takes effect Aug. 1 and shall be for a period of no less than 90 days. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against Strup.

Robert C. Szilagyi, of LaPorte County, has been suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The June 20, 2012, order says Szilagyi, who is the prosecutor in LaPorte County, violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(c) and (d) when he signed his ex-wife’s name on a quitclaim deed. Szilagyi discovered on the day he was to close refinancing on the formal marital residence he and his ex-wife had shared that his ex-wife had signed her restored name on the deed instead of the married name as reflected on the title. Szilagyi also signed his secretary’s name as notary and used her stamp on the deed without consent of her or his ex-wife. The secretary was investigated by the Indiana secretary of state due to Szilagyi’s actions.

The parties found that Szilagyi forged the signatures because he wanted to avoid an “unpleasant conversation” with his ex-wife and that he should have known how this type of misconduct can impugn the reputation of lawyers and the legal system. Szilagyi has no disciplinary history and accepted responsibility for his actions.

The suspension is for 60 days and begins Aug. 1. If there are no objections, he will be automatically reinstated. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against him.•

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT