ILNews

Disciplinary Actions -4/24/13

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.

Public reprimand
Ray W. Robison, of Lawrence County, has been publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court in an April 9 order. The attorney signed a co-representative’s name on a document and forwarded it to be signed by the other co-representative, who recognized that the signature was not her sister’s.

Robison violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(c), which prohibits engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against Robison.

Chief Justice Brent Dickson dissented, to which Justice Loretta Rush concurred, believing Robison should receive a substantial period of suspension.

Suspension
Edgardo J. Martinez Suarez, of Hamilton County, has been suspended for 60 days by the Indiana Supreme Court in an April 2 order. The suspension is stayed subject to completion of at least two years of probation.

Martinez Suarez violated several Indiana Professional Conduct and Admission and Discipline rules, including Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(b) for failure to timely withdraw earned fees and personal monies from client trust account funds; and Admission and Discipline Rule 23(29)(a)(2) and (3) for failure to maintain proper records for trust account activities. An in-house audit of Martinez Suarez’s trust account by the Disciplinary Commission revealed violations from 2006 to 2012, including at least six instances of paying personal and business expenses from the trust account. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

Marisa Aguilar, of Marion County, has been suspended for 30 days by the Indiana Supreme Court in an April 2 order. The suspension is stayed subject to completion of at least two years of probation.

Aguilar violated several Indiana Professional Conduct and Admission and Discipline rules, including Professional Conduct Rule 1.15(a) for failure to maintain and preserve complete records of client trust fund accounts; and Admission and Discipline Rule 23(29)(a)(5) for making withdrawals from a trust account without written withdrawal authorization stating the amount and purpose of the withdrawal and payee.

The Disciplinary Commission learned of an overdraft on Aguilar’s trust account, and she failed to respond to demands for a documented explanation. Her trust account was audited after a grievance was filed and showed that she made several deposits and disbursements from her trust account without creating or retaining adequate documentation. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against her.

Octavia F. Snulligan, of Marion County, has been suspended immediately by the Indiana Supreme Court for noncooperation with the Disciplinary Commission, per an April 15 order. The suspension will continue until the Disciplinary Commission executive secretary certifies that Snulligan has cooperated with the investigation; the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or until further order from the Supreme Court.

The costs of the proceeding are assessed against Snulligan.•
 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT