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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT