ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 10/12/11

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
James S. Dal Santo of Lake County has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for a period of 180 days, beginning Nov. 1, with 60 days actively served and the remainder stayed subject to completion of 18 months of probation. The suspension was made in a Supreme Court order issued Sept. 19, 2011. Dal Santo admitted numerous trust account violations from 2005 to 2009, which included writing checks that did not clear due to insufficient funds, allowing the balance to become negative, writing checks to “cash,” using trust funds for personal expenses and failure to keep proper records of his trust account. Dal Santo violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.15(a) by failing to safeguard property of clients, treating client funds as his own, and failing to maintain and preserve complete client trust account fund records; Rule 8.4(b), which prohibits committing a criminal act of conversion that reflects adversely on the lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(29)(a)(3-5) by failing to maintain and preserve trust fund records, comingling of trust funds with other attorney or firm money and making withdrawals from a trust account without written authorization or making withdrawals from those accounts by checks payable to “cash.” All justices concurred, except Justice Steven David who would reject the conditional agreement, believing the discipline is insufficient in light of the admitted misconduct.

Everett E. Powell, II of Marion County has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for a period of not less than 120 days, without automatic reinstatement, beginning Nov. 11. A per curiam order from the Supreme Court Sept. 29, 2011, concluded that Powell violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(a) by collecting a clearly unreasonable and exploitive fee from a vulnerable client. In 2004, Powell consulted with a woman and her boyfriend about access to a trust holding money she obtained from a settlement of a personal injury action. The woman had a history of drug and alcohol abuse and claimed to be in an abusive and controlling relationship, and another attorney declined to give her access to the trust account. She went to Powell, who agreed to a contingency fee of one-third of whatever was in the trust. As soon as he became successor trustee, Powell deposited a check that was intended to pay for medical bills into the trust and paid himself $14,815.55 as his fee. He gave the client nearly $30,000 and the remaining funds stayed in the account until bank fees depleted them.

Barbara L. Barkas of Marion County has been suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, for noncooperation with the disciplinary commission in an investigation of a grievance filed against her. The suspension was issued by the Supreme Court Sept. 29, 2011. Barkas was already suspended for CLE noncompliance, effective June 20.

Stuart K. Baggerly of Monroe County has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for a period of 30 days, beginning Nov. 11, with automatic reinstatement. The Supreme Court issued the suspension in an order filed Sept. 30, 2011. A father retained Baggerly in 1998 to represent him and his daughters in seeking damages for injuries they sustained in a car accident. After Baggerly negotiated a settlement on the three claims, he lost or misplaced a $5,000 check he received in 2000 for one of the daughters and, during the next 10 to 11 years, failed to respond to the clients’ repeated requests for the money. A disciplinary action filed in June 2011 led to Baggerly paying the clients $8,000 by cashier’s check. Baggerly admitted to violating Rule 1.1: failure to provide competent representation; Rule 1.3: failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; 1.4(a): failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and respond promptly to reasonable requests for information; 1.15(a): failure to hold property of clients properly in trust; and 1.15(d): failure to deliver promptly to a client funds that person is entitled to receive.

Olubunmi O. Okanlami of St. Joseph County received an interim suspension from the Supreme Court on Oct. 6, 2011, effective 15 days from the date of the order and until further order from the court or a final resolution of any resulting disciplinary matter. The suspension comes after Okanlami was found guilty of felony battery and residential entry stemming from an incident in December 2010.

Resignation
Janet B. Mallett of Marion County has resigned from the bar, effective immediately by a Supreme Court order issued Sept. 19, 2011, pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17). The pending disciplinary action against her is dismissed as moot, and she will be ineligible to petition for reinstatement for five years according to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4)(a).

Action Dismissed
Jacob A. Atanga of Marion County has had one disciplinary action dismissed by the Supreme Court. Atanga was suspended Aug. 19 for noncooperation with the disciplinary commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against him, and on Sept. 19, 2011, the commission filed a certificate of compliance stating that Atanga has cooperated with the investigation and that his suspension in this case should be revoked. Suspensions ordered in one or more other disciplinary actions remain in effect. He will not be listed as reinstated until all causes for suspension are cured.

Deborah D. Kubley of Monroe County has had one disciplinary action dismissed by the Supreme Court. She was suspended Dec. 27, 2010, for noncooperation with the disciplinary commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against her, and on Sept. 19 the commission filed a certificate of compliance stating that Kubley has now cooperated with the investigation and that her suspension in this case should be revoked. Suspensions ordered in one or more other disciplinary actions remain in effect. She will not be listed as reinstated until all causes for suspension are cured.

Contempt of Court
John L. Peak of Monroe County has been fined $500 in contempt of court for practicing law while suspended. The Supreme Court issued an order Sept. 30, 2011. The disciplinary commission asserted that Peak appeared in court March 29 on behalf of a client and again on June 28, following his June 2010 suspension for CLE noncompliance and dues nonpayment.•

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. "Am I bugging you? I don't mean to bug ya." If what I wrote below is too much social philosophy for Indiana attorneys, just take ten this vacay to watch The Lego Movie with kiddies and sing along where appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzMjoH0rJw

  2. I've got some free speech to share here about who is at work via the cat's paw of the ACLU stamping out Christian observances.... 2 Thessalonians chap 2: "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last."

  3. Did someone not tell people who have access to the Chevy Volts that it has a gas engine and will run just like a normal car? The batteries give the Volt approximately a 40 mile range, but after that the gas engine will propel the vehicle either directly through the transmission like any other car, or gas engine recharges the batteries depending on the conditions.

  4. Catholic, Lutheran, even the Baptists nuzzling the wolf! http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-reveal-obama-hhs-paid-baptist-children-family-services-182129786-four-months-housing-illegal-alien-children/ YET where is the Progressivist outcry? Silent. I wonder why?

  5. Thank you, Honorable Ladies, and thank you, TIL, for this interesting interview. The most interesting question was the last one, which drew the least response. Could it be that NFP stamps are a threat to the very foundation of our common law American legal tradition, a throwback to the continental system that facilitated differing standards of justice? A throwback to Star Chamber’s protection of the landed gentry? If TIL ever again interviews this same panel, I would recommend inviting one known for voicing socio-legal dissent for the masses, maybe Welch, maybe Ogden, maybe our own John Smith? As demographics shift and our social cohesion precipitously drops, a consistent judicial core will become more and more important so that Justice and Equal Protection and Due Process are yet guiding stars. If those stars fall from our collective social horizon (and can they be seen even now through the haze of NFP opinions?) then what glue other than more NFP decisions and TRO’s and executive orders -- all backed by more and more lethally armed praetorians – will prop up our government institutions? And if and when we do arrive at such an end … will any then dare call that tyranny? Or will the cost of such dissent be too high to justify?

ADVERTISEMENT