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

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. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT