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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT