ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 11/24/10

November 24, 2010
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.

Disbarment
William J. Rawls of Marion County has been disbarred from the practice of law in the state of Indiana effective Dec. 27, 2010. The Indiana Supreme Court found that Rawls engaged in a pattern of serious violations of the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules. His history of discipline, including a prior suspension for misconduct, was a substantial fact in aggravation.

Other prior discipline included suspensions for CLE noncompliance, dues nonpayment, and noncooperation with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission (which were dismissed after compliance).

In the Per Curiam order filed Nov. 12, 2010, the court stated, “Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of neglect of his clients’ cases, resulting in adverse dispositions, suspension of one client’s driver’s license, a missed opportunity to settle, and undue delay. Respondent made a series of intentional misrepresentations to the Commission during its investigations of grievances. Respondent created a fraudulent receipt, criminally forged a client’s name on it, and submitted it to the Commission, acting as an agency of this Court, with the intent of deceiving the Commission.”

The order states that the hearing officer recommended that the discipline “imposed should be severe, in accordance with [Respondent’s] dereliction of his duties.” The commission filed a brief on sanction arguing that Rawls misconduct, coupled with his prior suspensions, warranted disbarment. In its order of disbarment, the court acknowledged the severity of this sanction, stating that it is reserved for the most serious misconduct.

Suspension
Andrew E. Clark of Marion County has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana effective immediately. In an order filed Nov. 3, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court suspended Clark for noncooperation with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(3), the suspension will continue until: (1) the Disciplinary Commission certifies that Clark has cooperated fully with the investigation; the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or until further order of the court.

Resignation
Mark A. Ryan of Howard County has resigned from the Indiana bar effective immediately. In an order issued Nov. 12, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court accepted Ryan’s resignation and dismissed any attorney disciplinary proceedings pending against him.

Clark is ineligible for petition for reinstatement to the practice of law in Indiana for five years. Approval of a petition for reinstatement is discretionary and requires clear and convincing evidence of his remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law.•

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT