ILNews

Disciplinary Actions -1/5/11

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
Daniel C. McCarthy of Johnson County was suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than 30 days in a Supreme Court order filed Dec. 21, 2010. The suspension begins Jan. 28, 2011. McCarthy violated Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(g) which prohibits engaging in conduct, in a professional capacity, manifesting bias or prejudice based upon race, unless the conduct constitutes legitimate advocacy. McCarthy used a “derogatory racial insult” in an e-mail concerning a legal matter. Because he denied committing any misconduct, has offered no apology or other indication of remorse, and has a prior disciplinary suspension, the court concluded that a suspension was warranted and that McCarthy should go through the reinstatement process to prove his understanding of his ethical duties and remorse before resuming practice.

Twelve Indiana attorneys were suspended from the practice of law by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Dec. 20, 2010. The lawyers were suspended for remaining delinquent regarding compliance with certain continuing legal education requirements for the period ending Dec. 31, 2009. The lawyers suspended either failed to meet the extended deadlines to complete their CLE and/or they didn’t pay applicable delinquency fees, or they resumed active status less than one year after having assumed inactive status. Suspensions for the following are effective immediately: Herbert L. Segal (Louisville, Ky.); Gary D. Sallee (Fishers, Ind.); Joseph L. Hardesty (Louisville, Ky.); William L. Nie (Columbus, Ind.); Amy G. Grogan (Elmhurst, Ill.); Jason D. Bray (Maitland, Fla.); Apexa Patel (Fort Wayne, Ind.); Marc J. Moss (Carmel, Ind.); Christopher M. Nixon (Conifer, Colo.); Andrew R. Choate (Bargersville, Ind.); Jennifer L. Vaughn (Chicago, Ill.); Lin Lin C. Ding (Shanghai, China).

Public reprimand
Stephen A. Kray of LaPorte County received a public reprimand in a Supreme Court order filed Dec. 17, 2010. In his representation of a client in a dissolution case, Kray violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.4(b) failure to explain a matter (the basis of his fee) to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions; 1.5(b) failure to communicate the basis or rate of the fee for which a client will be responsible; 1.5(d) entering into a contingent fee agreement in a dissolution case; and 1.15(a) failure to deposit legal fees paid in advance into a client trust account. In its order, the Supreme Court indicated that Kray was cooperative, accepted responsibility for his actions, and has become more knowledgeable about the issues involved and has taken steps to revise his fee agreements.•

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. All the lawyers involved in this don't add up to a hill of beans; mostly yes-men punching their tickets for future advancement. REMF types. Window dressing. Who in this mess was a real hero? the whistleblower that let the public know about the torture, whom the US sent to Jail. John Kyriakou. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?_r=0 Now, considering that Torture is Illegal, considering that during Vietnam a soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for waterboarding, why has the whistleblower gone to jail but none of the torturers have been held to account? It's amazing that Uncle Sam's sunk lower than Vietnam. But that's where we're at. An even more unjust and pointless war conducted in an even more bogus manner. this from npr: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier." Today, the US itself has become lawless.

  2. "Brain Damage" alright.... The lunatic is on the grass/ The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.... The lunatic is in the hall/ The lunatics are in my hall/ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more/ And if the dam breaks open many years too soon/ And if there is no room upon the hill/ And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too/ I'll see you on the dark side of the moon!!!

  3. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  4. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  5. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

ADVERTISEMENT