ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 8/3/12

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
Lora N. Barkes, of Porter County, has been suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court for seven rule violations, including failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Barkes falsely told two clients that she had taken action on several collection actions when she had not. At the time, she knew her mental fitness was impaired by depression, yet she continued with the representations.

Several mitigating factors were found, including that Barkes is remorseful and has no disciplinary history. The justices found in a July 17, 2012, order that she violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.3; 1.4(b); 1.16(a)(2); 3.2; and 8.4(a), (c) and (d). They suspended her for 180 days, beginning Aug. 28, with 60 days actively served. The remainder will be stayed subject to completion of 18 months of probation, which includes monitoring by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.

Resignation
Stacy H. Sheedy, of Marion County, has resigned from the Indiana bar, per a July 17, 2012, order. Sheedy pleaded guilty in March to two counts of Class C felony theft following accusations that she misappropriated nearly $600,000 from clients. She was sentenced to eight years.

She is ineligible to petition for reinstatement for five years. Sheedy’s resignation ends any disciplinary investigation.

Cynthia P. Purvis, of Marion County, has resigned from the Indiana bar, per a July 19, 2012, order. Her resignation is effective immediately. Any disciplinary actions pending against Purvis have been dismissed as moot. She must wait five years before she can 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT