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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT