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.

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.

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.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues