ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 12/8/10

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.

SUSPENSIONS

Jerry I. Shapiro of Lake County has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for a period of not less than three years, without automatic reinstatement. The order was issued by the Indiana Supreme Court Nov. 30, 2010, and was effective immediately. Shapiro was currently suspended for CLE noncompliance and dues nonpayment, and for noncooperation with the Commission.

Shapiro was hired by the daughter of a Lake County woman to handle her mother’s probate estate. (The daughter lives in Poland.) After the sale of the decedent’s home, Shapiro failed to move forward with the closing of the estate, failed to pay state inheritance taxes, failed to file an inventory, failed to respond to the daughter’s requests for information, and made unauthorized payments totaling $24,000 to himself from estate assets. He failed to obey a court order that he provide an accounting and documents pertaining to the estate to new counsel. This resulted in the trial court issuing a bench warrant for his arrest.

The court found that Shapiro violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.1, failure to provide competent representation; 1.3, failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; 1.4(a)(3), failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter; 1.4(a)(4), failure to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information; 1.15(d), failure to deliver promptly to a client funds the client is entitled to receive; 8.4(b), committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; 8.4(c), engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; 8.4(d), engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Jay F. Tweedy of Marion County has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for a period of not less than six months, without automatic reinstatement, beginning Dec. 31, 2010. In an order filed Nov. 30, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court suspended Tweedy for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) which prohibits committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. Tweedy pleaded guilty in December 2009 to public intoxication. He has five prior convictions for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Four occurred after his admission to the bar.

Kurt F. Pantzer III of Marion County has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for a period of not less than 90 days, without automatic reinstatement, beginning Jan. 7, 2011. In an order filed Nov. 30, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court suspended Pantzer for engaging in professional misconduct. The court said he knew statements made in a motion and draft order were false. The court found that Pantzer violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.3(a)(1), knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; 3.4(a), unlawfully obstructing another party’s access to evidence; 3.4(b), falsifying evidence; 8.4(c), engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.•

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT