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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT