Disciplinary Actions - 7/2/14

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.

The suspension of Michael L. Lipsky, of St. Joseph County, has been converted to an indefinite suspension, per a June 12 order by the Indiana Supreme Court. Lipsky was suspended in October 2013 for noncooperation concerning a grievance.

Michael J. Alexander, of Delaware County, has been suspended for 60 days with automatic reinstatement, per a June 16 order. The Indiana Supreme Court found he violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(a) for hiring an attorney who had resigned from the bar two years earlier. Alexander later fired the attorney. The justices found Alexander violated Rules 3.4(c), 3.4(e) and 8.4(d) regarding his actions involving discovery in a dram shop case and statements made during closing argument. The Supreme Court noted Alexander took corrective steps regarding his hiring of the ex-attorney and expressed regret regarding his conduct, but that he also has a history of discipline.

His suspension begins Aug. 5 and the costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

Paul K. Ogden, of Marion County, has been suspended for 30 days with automatic reinstatement, per a June 16 order. The Indiana Supreme Court found comments Ogden made regarding a judge on an estate case of Ogden’s client – that the judge committed malfeasance by allowing the estate to be opened as an unsupervised estate and not requiring the posting of bond – violated Rule 8.2(a) because he made the statements in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity. The justices held other comments Ogden made regarding the judge did not rise to the level of warranting discipline, nor did his action of sending letters to Marion Superior judges and other entities regarding the forfeiture law. Ogden’s suspension begins Aug. 5 and he is ordered to pay one-half of the costs and expenses of the proceeding and a $250 fine to the clerk.•


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. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit