ILNews

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.

Suspension
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.

Resignation
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.•

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 work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT