Disciplinary Actions - 7/3/13

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.

Phillip H. Chamberlain, of Monroe County, has been suspended per a June 11 order from the Indiana Supreme Court. His interim suspension became effective 15 days from the date of the order.

Chamberlain pleaded guilty in October 2012 to Class D felony counterfeiting. He requested and was granted an extension to May 15 to file a response to the request for suspension, but did not file any submission.

The Clear Creek attorney was arrested in 2008 and faced charges of Class C felonies fraudulent sale of securities, forgery, sale of unregistered securities and unregistered investment advisor. These charges were dismissed after he entered an agreement to plead guilty to the Class D felony.He was sentenced to 540 days in the Indiana Department of Correction with all but time served suspended, completion of 120 days of community service and ordered to pay $166 in court costs.

Carl C. Jones, of Lake County, has been suspended for at least six months without automatic reinstatement, per a June 17 order. Jones was convicted in November 2010 of Class A misdemeanor trafficking with an inmate. He delivered a letter from his client’s girlfriend offering to testify falsely about an alibi for the client, as well as letters from the client’s mother and brother, and other items.

In a 2007 Disciplinary Commission response, Jones said the letters confiscated were mailed to the client by the client’s mother. At his trial, he said he brought the letters to his client. He was found to have violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c). The use of his position of trust as an attorney to traffic in contraband with an inmate is serious misconduct, and Jones’ untruthful response to the commission’s investigative inquiry was a substantial breach of professional ethics, the justices held. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against Jones.

Anthony T. Adolf, of Allen County, has been suspended for noncooperation with the Disciplinary Commission, effective immediately, per a June 20 order. Adolf was ordered to show cause as to why he shouldn’t be suspended for failing to cooperate with the commission’s investigation into a grievance. Adolf responded with a one-sentence answer and has not cooperated.

Adolf must also pay $512.22 for costs of prosecuting the proceeding.

Veronica M. Roby, of Madison County, has been suspended for noncooperation with the Disciplinary Commission, effective immediately, per a June 20 order. She has not submitted a response to the Supreme Court’s order to show cause issued in March regarding her failure to cooperate with the commission’s investigation of a grievance.

Roby must also pay $523.72 for the costs of prosecuting the proceeding.

Public reprimand
David E. Corbitt, of Marion County, has been publicly reprimanded, in a June 20 order, for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b). He pleaded guilty last year to Class A misdemeanors resisting law enforcement and operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person.

Corbitt has no disciplinary history, is making restitution for property damage he caused, and has voluntarily engaged himself for assessment by the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, the order notes. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

Robert L. Collins, of Perry County, has resigned from the bar, per a June 20 order. A verified complaint for disciplinary action was filed against him in August 2010. Any disciplinary proceeds pending are dismissed as moot, and Collins must wait at least five years to petition for reinstatement.•


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. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?