ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 12/7/11

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
Richard Loiseau, of Orlando, Fla., has been suspended from the practice of law for not less than 90 days, without automatic reinstatement, beginning Dec. 29, 2011, according to a Nov. 22 order from the Indiana Supreme Court. The court found Loiseau committed misconduct when handling an immigration case for a client who was later ordered to be deported. The court found the attorney failed to appear in court, lied in an affidavit about how he represented the client in court and later made a different statement during the disciplinary proceedings against him. Misconduct also occurred when the lawyer represented the same client’s husband in an asylum and deportation case in which Loiseau didn’t tell the immigration judge about the wife’s pending asylum proceeding before a different judge. Loiseau violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness when he failed to appear for two hearings; Rule 1.4(a)(3) when he failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter; 3.3(a)(1) on knowingly making a false statement to a tribunal; and Rule 8.4(c) that prohibits an attorney from knowingly engaging in dishonest, fraudulent or deceitful conduct. The court found no mitigators but cited Loiseau’s past public reprimand from 2002, that he engaged in a pattern of dishonesty and that he’s not remorseful or willing to accept responsibility.

James A. Earhart, of Louisville, Ky., has been suspended from the practice of law for 30 days, beginning Dec. 29, 2011. A Nov. 22 order from the Indiana Supreme Court imposed the sanction because of a client fee arrangement Earhart made in 2008. The lawyer was retained and paid $10,000 to represent a client against anticipated criminal charges. Earhart sent a letter confirming receipt of that initial, non-refundable fee and wrote that an additional fee in the same amount would be charged to represent the client through trial if charges were filed. The client killed himself a few days later, and despite performing no more than five hours of work, Earhart refused to refund the unearned portion of the amount to the client’s widow. The court found the client’s death so soon after retaining Earhart “clearly rendered at least a portion of the client’s $10,000 payment unearned.” Although the attorney refunded the full fee after this grievance was filed, the court didn’t find that to be a mitigating factor. It found his lack of disciplinary history is a mitigator. Earhart violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(a) on charging an unreasonable fee and Rule 1.16(d) on failing to refund an unearned fee upon termination of representation.

Public reprimand
Sean P. Hilgendorf, of St. Joseph County, received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court Nov. 17, 2011. The court accepted a conditional agreement for discipline and found Hilgendorf committed misconduct by refusing to refund a $1,300 fee after a client informed him he had hired other counsel in a criminal case.

In that 2008 case, the lawyer refused to refund any of the fee until after the hearing officer set a final hearing date on this disciplinary matter. In 2009, Hilgendorf failed to notify a client about a Court of Appeals decision until after the deadline to file a rehearing petition. In a letter he stated no further appellate procedures were possible. The lawyer later found a previous letter that was dated a day after the appellate decision that had been misaddressed to the client and returned. The court found no aggravators and looked to a lack of disciplinary history, his cooperation and no intent to be dishonest. He violated 1.4(a)(3) on failing to keep a client reasonably informed; 1.4(b) on failure to explain a matter reasonably for a client to make a decision; and 1.16(d) on failure to refund any unearned portion of a fee after the representation ends.•
 

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