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. 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

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT