ILNews

Disciplinary actions - Sept. 25, 2013

September 25, 2013
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.

Public reprimand
Lonnie M. Randolph, of East Chicago, received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Sept. 5, 2013.

Randolph was found to have violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.1: Failure to provide competent representation; Rule 1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; Rule 3.1: Asserting a position for which there is no non-frivolous basis in law or fact; Rule 1.5(a): Making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an unreasonable fee; and Rule 1.16(d): Failure to refund an unearned fee upon termination of representation.

The court found that Randolph took money from a client for a sentence modification that he should have known was not possible, and then continued to seek post-conviction relief for his client but failed to adequately instruct or communicate with him. Disputes over fees ensued. Randolph has received two prior private reprimands, and he acknowledged his present misconduct by resolving this matter by conditional agreement. Cost of proceedings are assessed against him.

Randolph is an Indiana state senator representing District 2.

Lori Ann Hittle, of Cicero, received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Sept. 12, 2013.

Hittle was found to have violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d) which prohibits engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In April 2012, while serving as a part-time deputy prosecutor in Howard County, she pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor. The order states that Hittle had no disciplinary history, cooperated with the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, was remorseful, served a one-month suspension without pay from her position as deputy prosecutor, and began individual substance abuse counseling prior to the filing of criminal charges.

Suspension
Jerry L. Peteet, of Gary, was suspended from the practice of law in Indiana, effective immediately, by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Sept. 6, 2013.

Peteet was found guilty of the following felonies under federal law: racketeering and attempt to commit murder in aid of racketeering activity. The interim suspension will continue until further order of the court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect.

Earl C. Mullins Jr., of Louisville, Ky., was suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Indiana, beginning Oct. 18, 2013, by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Sept. 6, 2013.

The suspension was reciprocal discipline imposed as the result of a suspension ordered by the Supreme Court of Kentucky. Mullins was suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for 90 days, with 30 days actively served and 60 days probated for two years on the condition that he receive no further disciplinary charges. The Indiana court order states that if Mullins is reinstated to practice in Kentucky, he may file a Motion for Reinstatement after his minimum 30-day active suspension in Indiana pursuant to and in full compliance with Admission and Discipline Rule 23(28)(e), provided there is no other suspension order in effect.

Joseph B. Barker, of Martinsville, was suspended for 30 days from the practice of law in Indiana, effective Oct. 14, 2013, by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Sept. 6, 2013.

During his representation of a father in a dissolution action, Barker wrote in a letter to the mother’s attorney that the mother does not understand what laws mean, probably because she is an illegal alien. The court found “accusing Mother of being in the country illegally is not legitimate advocacy concerning the legal matter at issue and served no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden Mother.”

The Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission charged Barker with violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 4.4(a): Using means in representing a client that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person; and 8.4(g): Engaging in conduct, in a professional capacity, manifesting bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, or similar factors, and this conduct was not legitimate advocacy.

Barker will be automatically reinstated at the conclusion of the 30-day period provided no other suspensions are in effect.

Jeffrey D. Heck, of Carmel, was suspended from the practice of law in Indiana, effective immediately, by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Sept. 5, 2013. Heck was suspended for noncooperation with the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. The suspension will continue until the commission certifies that he has fully cooperated with the investigation, the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of, or until further order of the court.

James C. Kotz, of Munster, was suspended from the practice of law in Indiana, effective Sept. 12, the date of the Indiana Supreme Court order. Kotz was found guilty of the following felony under federal law: interference with administration of internal revenue laws. The interim suspension will continue until further order of the court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect.

Resignation
Resignation from the Indiana bar by Timothy V. Clark, of Indianapolis, was accepted by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Sept. 6, 2013. Any attorney disciplinary proceedings pending were dismissed.

The order states that Clark had an extensive history of discipline, including a warning that any future misconduct could lead to a sanction up to and including disbarment. The order states that the misconduct charged in the verified complaint would likely have resulted in permanent disbarment had he not chosen voluntary resignation from the bar. If Clark seeks reinstatement, the misconduct admitted in the affidavit of resignation, as well as any other allegations of misconduct, will be addressed in the reinstatement process.•

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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT