Disciplinary Actions - 7/17/13

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.

Noah Holcomb Jr., of Lake County, has been suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court for at least three years, per a June 28 order. Holcomb made 21 disbursements from his attorney trust account from November 2007 to March 2008 while his office’s operating account was levied by the IRS. These disbursements were not related to any client but for his benefit. In 1999, he failed to liquidate stock, redeem fully mature U.S. savings bonds and pay inheritance taxes as a representative for an unsupervised decedent’s estate. His failure to act resulted in losses for the estate. He also paid himself around $30,000 from the estate, most of which he did not earn.

Holcomb has violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.3, 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), 8.4(b), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d); as well as Ind. Admission and Discipline Rules 23(29)(a)(2), 23(29)(a)(3), 23(29)(a)(4), and 23(29)(a)(5).

The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him. The justices noted Holcomb may have been disbarred had it not been for an agreement between Holcomb and the Disciplinary Commission. His suspension is without automatic reinstatement, and it begins Aug. 2. Justices David and Rush dissented, believing he should be disbarred.

Ronald E. Weldy, of Marion County, has been suspended for 180 days, with 90 days actively served and the remainder stayed subject to completing at least one year of probation, per a June 28 order. Six counts were filed against Weldy. In Count 1, he neglected his client on a wage claim action and failed to communicate with her, including not telling her his office moved. Her case had been dismissed under Ind. Trial Rule 41(E). In Count 2, he sought $8,000 from a settlement for attorney fees, which the client did not agree to. After the client filed for bankruptcy, Weldy served as attorney for the bankruptcy trustee and the bankruptcy court determined his fee for services.

In Count 3, he was hired to pursue a wage claim action and the client disputed the amount of attorney fees Weldy claimed after a settlement. In Count 4, he was hired to file a wage claim action and was terminated after making no progress for a year. He was later re-hired and mistakenly told the client that a motion for summary judgment had been filed. The case was dismissed under Trial Rule 41(E). In Count 5, he failed to respond to his client’s requests for information on a wage claim action, but the client hired him to represent her in a second action with no written fee agreement. The second claim settled and Weldy kept the settlement check and filed a small-claims action against her. The court ordered him to deposit the check with the court and he received a third of the amount. In Count 6, he agreed to represent a client in a proposed class action against Clarian Health Partners regarding alleged violations of Indiana’s wage and hour laws. He was sanctioned by the court for making untrue assertions during discovery. The client and Clarian settled, but Weldy continued pursuing the case. A petition filed by Clarian seeking $40,000 in attorney fees is still pending.

Weldy has violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.4(b), 1.5(b), 1.5(c), 1.7(a)(2), 1.15(e), 1.16(a)(3), 3.1, 3.2, 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

His suspension begins Aug. 9. The justices noted his discipline may have been more severe had he not entered into an agreement with the Disciplinary Commission. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against Weldy. Chief Justice Dickson and Justice Rush dissent, believing the penalty is insufficient for the severity of the offense.

Public Reprimand
David J. Scott, of Henry County, received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court June 28 for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b). Scott pleaded guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge of battery, which involved his wife and occurred in front of his minor children, and he was placed on probation for one year. He is remorseful, has completed his probation and is compliant with a monitoring agreement with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.

The costs of the proceeding are assessed against Scott.

Elden E. Stoops, of Wabash County, received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court June 28 in two cases. The first case involved his representation of an uncle who sought custody of a child. Stoops sent copies of the papers he filed to the father but failed to serve them on or contact the father’s counsel of record. Counsel and Stoops later worked out an agreement regarding custody. In that case, he was found to have violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.5(b), 8.4(d) and 8.4(f).

In the second case, Stoops represented a grandmother and a half-brother who sought to be named co-guardians of the half-brother’s siblings. After difficulties developed between the half-brother, his girlfriend and the wards, Stoops filed on behalf of the grandmother a request that the half-brother be removed as co-guardian. The half-brother’s attorney believed this to be a conflict of interest. Another attorney entered an appearance on behalf of the grandmother, but it’s not clear whether Stoops ever withdrew his appearance for either the grandmother or half-brother. He violated Rule 1.7(a)(1) in this matter. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against him.

John Carroll Eckert, of Jefferson County, has resigned from the bar, effectively immediately, per a June 28 order. Any disciplinary proceedings pending are dismissed as moot. He must wait five years to petition for reinstatement. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against Eckert.

Terminated Suspension

The suspension of Veronica M. Roby, of Madison County, for noncooperation with the Disciplinary Commission has been terminated by the Indiana Supreme Court, per a July 2 order. The suspension ended June 28, and Roby was reinstated to the practice of law as long as no other suspension is in effect. Her failure to pay any outstanding costs in this case by Oct. 1 will subject her to an order of suspension.

The Indiana Supreme Court has reinstated Charles J. Rathburn Jr., of Allen County, effective July 2. Rathburn was suspended in 2006 and petitioned for reinstatement in February 2012. The Disciplinary Commission recommended that Rathburn not be reinstated because he had not met his burden of proof that he fully complied with the terms of the order for discipline. The Supreme Court denied his petition in April, but reinstated Rathburn after he filed a motion for reconsideration. The justices concluded that the noncompliance identified by the hearing officer and the commission should not bar his readmission.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues