ILNews

Disciplinary Actions -1/20/12

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
Delmar P. Kuchaes, of Lake County, has been suspended from the practice of law for 180 days with automatic reinstatement, beginning Feb. 17, 2012. The Indiana Supreme Court issued an order Jan. 5, which involves the attorney’s conduct on a case that began in 1993. He filed a lawsuit in state court against a vaccine maker and its parent company on behalf of a woman allegedly injured by a polio vaccine and her husband for loss of consortium. Kuchaes requested that the case be voluntarily dismissed after learning that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act applied and a federal suit could be filed, and he dismissed the husband’s claim after learning the loss of consortium claims aren’t compensable under the federal act. Kuchaes obtained $1 million for the woman in 1998 in that federal case, and then he reopened the state court case on the husband’s claims but didn’t notify the defendants. In 2000, he moved for default judgment, stating the defendants hadn’t appeared or answered the complaint despite the case being dismissed prior to the response deadline. He obtained a $5 million default judgment and initiated garnishment proceedings in 2004, but up until that point hadn’t notified the defendants of the revived state court action required by Trial Rule 5(A). The state case was eventually removed to federal court, where the default judgment was set aside and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, sanctioned Kuchaes for bringing a frivolous appeal and ordered him to pay almost $58,000 for the defendants’ attorney fees. The Indiana Supreme Court found Kuchaes has no disciplinary history and he now acknowledges the argument about the state court case dismissal was untenable. The court found he violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.1, 3.3(a), 3.4(c), 3.5(b) and 8.4(d) involving his frivolous assertion, knowingly making a misleading statement, knowingly disobeying a court obligation, engaging in an improper ex parte communication with a court and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Public reprimand
David B. LeBeau, of Allen County, has received a public reprimand, by order of the Indiana Supreme Court on Jan. 5, 2012. The justices approved a conditional disciplinary agreement with the Disciplinary Commission that stems from LeBeau’s arrest for marijuana possession on Aug. 1, 2009, and his entering into a diversion program. An Allen County deputy prosecutor at the time, LeBeau was discharged from his position shortly after his arrest. LeBeau violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) on committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty and trustworthiness, and Rule 8.4(d) on engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The justices agreed a reprimand was appropriate after finding mitigating factors that included no disciplinary history, LeBeau’s cooperation and his subsequent evaluation by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program that found no evidence of addiction or substance abuse.

Contempt of Court
Stephen P. Wolfe, of Grant County, was held in contempt of court and fined $500 by the Indiana Supreme Court, according to an order issued Dec. 20, 2011. The court issued an interim suspension in July after Wolfe was found guilty of three Class D felony theft counts. At the time, the attorney was already suspended for nonpayment of his annual registration fee. In October, the Disciplinary Commission filed a petition for Wolfe to show why he should not be held in contempt for violating his suspension based on accusations that he engaged in the practice of law in court on Sept. 28, 2011. He responded in writing that he intended to accompany a friend and former client to court as a witness, but he then “reverted back to his attorney ways and began actually representing [his friend] at the hearing.” Finding that Wolfe’s violation appears to be limited to a single, now-completed event, a three-justice majority determined a $500 fine to be paid by the end of February was sufficient. Chief Justice Randall Shepard and Justice Steven David dissented in part regarding the sanction and would have imposed both a $500 fine and five days of incarceration.

Resignation
Peter H. Rosenthal, of Marion County, has resigned from the Indiana bar, effective Jan. 5, 2012. The Indiana Supreme Court published an order accepting the resignation, pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17). The court ordered that any attorney disciplinary proceedings pending against Rosenthal are dismissed as moot, and Rosenthal will be ineligible for reinstatement for five years.

Suspension Terminated
Stanley Kahn, of Marion County, has had his suspension from the practice of law terminated by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order dated Jan. 3, 2012. The suspension had been imposed Dec. 8, 2011, as a result of Kahn’s noncooperation with the Disciplinary Commission into a grievance investigation. The commission filed a certificate of compliance Dec. 30 finding that Kahn had cooperated and should no longer be suspended, and the court lifted the suspension on Dec. 30, 2011.•
 

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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT