ILNews

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.

Suspension
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.•

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT