ILNews

Disciplinary Actions -1/6/12

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
Lawrence T. Newman, of Marion County, has received an 18-month suspension without automatic reinstatement for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.4(a)(4), 1.5(a), 1.16(a)(3) and 1.16(d) for failing to comply with a client’s reasonable requests for an accounting of the hours he worked prior to being discharged, by charging an unreasonable fee, by failing to withdraw from representation promptly after being discharged, and by failing to return the client’s file after its retention was no longer necessary to secure payment of the fee. The disciplinary action involves work that Newman did in helping to represent a client in disputes over the operation of a closely held corporation left by her father in his estate. An agreement said that Newman would be paid $195 an hour, payable upon receipt of the client’s distribution from the estate, plus 25 percent of the distribution. After a few weeks of representation, the client sent a letter asking the attorney to stop all work. She later terminated his employment and asked for an accounting of the legal work performed. But Newman filed a notice of his intent to hold an attorney’s lien on the client’s distribution for his hourly fee plus the 25 percent, and it took more than three years for the client to receive her file after being ordered to pay Newman about $8,500 for work he performed. Chief Justice Randall Shepard and Justices Brent Dickson and Frank Sullivan ordered the sanction in a per curiam opinion on Dec. 20, but Justice Robert Rucker disagreed with one of the alleged rule violations and would have opted for a 90-day suspension. Justice Steven David didn’t participate. The suspension begins Jan. 31, 2012.

John G. Clifton, of Allen County, has been suspended from the practice of law for 180 days, with automatic reinstatement, beginning Jan. 20, 2012. The Indiana Supreme Court ordered the suspension in a Dec. 8 order approving a conditional agreement with the Disciplinary Commission, finding that Clifton violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.1, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 3.4(c) and 3.4(d) that involve failure to provide competent representation; failure to keep a client reasonably informed; failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions; knowingly disobeying a court’s rules; and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Clifton admitted to seven counts of misconduct for indicating to the Allen County Public Defender’s Office in October 2006 that he was available to handle criminal appeals despite his inexperience in that area of law. During the course of a year, Clifton was appointed to represent seven criminal defendants. In these cases, he committed numerous violations of the appellate rules. In one case, he told his client the case couldn’t be appealed because the client entered into a plea agreement, when in fact the appeal had been dismissed for noncompliance with appellate rules. Clifton failed to heed warnings by the Court of Appeals pointing out deficiencies and caused additional, unnecessary work for the court and Indiana attorney general. The Supreme Court found that Clifton doesn’t have any disciplinary history, cooperated with the commission and has worked to correct his behavior.

Ryan L. Strup, of Marion County, has received a 90-day suspension from the practice of law for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b), which prohibits committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer. The Dec. 9 order from the Indiana Supreme Court involves Strup’s pleading guilty to Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated stemming from a November 2003 incident. That happened before Strup’s admission to the bar in 2005. He pleaded guilty to OWI based on a November 2010 incident, which led to self-reporting his arrest and entering into a monitoring agreement with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program that required he refrain from alcohol use. He failed two urine tests in March and May 2011, and in June, he admitted to his JLAP caseworker that he’d continued to consume alcohol despite the agreement. The Supreme Court approved the conditional agreement, finding that Strup has no disciplinary history, has completed a 30-day residential treatment program, continues with an aftercare program and is meeting regularly with a JLAP monitor for random drug screens. The suspension is stayed subject to the attorney’s completion of two years of probation, including JLAP monitoring.

Public reprimand
Martell B. Royer, of Lake County, has received a public reprimand for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.3, 3.2 and 8.4(d) for failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; failure to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of a client; and for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (by disregarding the administration of the estate and inconveniencing the court and beneficiaries). In 2002, Royer represented an estate’s personal representative, and after some activity, the estate remained dormant until 2007 when the beneficiaries filed a petition for an order to show cause why the representative shouldn’t be removed. The representative failed to appear at a motion hearing and the court held her in contempt. Royer withdrew at the personal representative’s request in 2008. Royer has a public reprimand from 2002, but also has a long history of service to the personal representative and her family. The high court also noted that he advised the representative of her duties, that the representative was no longer cooperative with Royer after September 2002, didn’t respond to attempts to contact her and that Royer had no personal knowledge of any misconduct by the personal representative until the 2007 removal petition.

James R. Wiesneth Jr., of Vigo County, has received a public reprimand for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3) and (4) and 1.16(d) for failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and respond promptly to reasonable requests for information; and for failure to refund an unearned fee after being terminated and failure to return a client case file materials. The disciplinary action involves Wiesneth’s representation of a mortgage holder in 2009 regarding a debtor dispute about loan arrearage. The client paid a $1,500 flat fee for representation in a foreclosure action and the attorney failed to obtain services, neglected the case and failed to respond to numerous attempts of communication by the client. After the client discharged Wiesneth and retained new counsel, Wiesneth failed to refund any part of the flat fee and failed to turn over the complete case file to the new attorney. Wiesneth provided a letter and invoice to the client after this grievance was filed saying the entire flat fee had been earned despite not finishing the work, and it wasn’t until after the Disciplinary Commission filed a complaint did Wiesneth refund $900 of the fee. The commission found in mitigation that Wiesneth had no disciplinary history and accepted responsibility. In a Dec. 9 order, Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker dissented with the sanction because they believe it’s insufficient in light of the attorney’s admitted misconduct.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • How long is Newman Suspended?
    G. Michael Witte letter states he's suspended for three years. The case that got him suspended is identical to my estate case, including havin the Late Judge Deiter recuse himself because Newman had a conflict of interest with the judge. His Modus Operandi is nearly identical.
  • HUH?
    SIGNED BY G. MICHAEL WITTE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DATED MAY 17, 2012.

    Your 6th complaint against Lawrence T. Newman filed on 4/12/2012. On 1/31/12, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order suspending Lawrence T. Newman’s law license for a period of three years. More important, even after three years, Lawrence Todd Newman will not get his license back unless and until he goes through a separate proceeding to prove that he is fit to practice law. This is not an easy process, and the burden is upon Lawrence T. Newman to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to return to practice.
    Because of the length of Lawrence T. Newman’s license suspension and the fact he may never succeed in getting his law license reinstated, we are not opening an investigation file at this time.
    Should Lawrence T. Newman seek reinstatement in the future, we will open your file and ask Lawrence T. Newman to address your grievance as part of his burden of proving fitness. We have attempted to notify Lawrence T. Newman that this will be required of him.
    It may disappoint you to hear that we will be doing nothing on your grievance at this time. However, the most our office can ever accomplish is to take away a lawyer’s license to practice law. We have already done that, albeit as a result of misconduct in cases other than your own. It makes better sense for our office to focus its limited resources on cases where the lawyers are still actively practicing law.
    • IS THERE ANY JUSTICE IN THE MARION COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION?
      Is there any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division? I am the unfortunate victim of a retaliatory lawsuit brought by Lawrence Todd Newman, the attorney from an estate case on which I worked as a unsupervised personal representative in 2006. The contract agreement for that case stated that the estate would be responsible for all attorney fees, but Newman refused to close the nearly insolvent estate when my duties were complete and his fees were paid. Instead, he tried to extort additional attorney fees from me by keeping the case open to address a wrongful death claim, despite the estate’s heir’s lack of interest in pursuing it and an expert doctor’s opinion that it would not be worth doing so. He also knowingly deceived me into believing that a “closing statement” was needed to close the estate, even though this requirement had actually been waived by the estate’s heir. The heir’s attorney filed a motion to have Newman removed from the case. After the court closed the probate case with prejudice (barred from further litigation) Newman illegally re-opened the case in another courtroom.
      As a result of complaints filed against him for these and similar actions, Newman has been suspended from practicing law for 18 months by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. In retaliation, he has filed suit against me demanding additional attorney fees for the 2006 estate case, despite the fact that I made no agreement stating that I would pay any fees from my own assets on behalf of the estate. This lawsuit violates the rules of ethics, due process of law, and equal protection of law. Newman has been allowed to file ridiculous pleadings at an alarming rate and has been supported by a biased court system. Judge Carroll refuses to recuse himself from the case despite the fact that, by his own admission, he intends to grant Newman sanctions regardless of the evidence. When my former counsel discovered that the previous judge on the case, Judge Sosin, was a long-time close friend of Newman’s family, Judge Carroll commented for the record during a hearing that Judge Sosin in so many words “he finds the door “was weak for recusing himself from the case as a result of this obvious conflict of interest.
      This case is a public policy issue. Statutes put in place to protect unsupervised personal representatives in probate matters are being ignored. This case will affect thousands of individuals involved in probating and the personal representation of estates. Justice cannot possibly be served as long as a biased judge is allowed to defend a “vexatious litigant,” as Newman has been described by Judge Logan in Bradenton, Florida court. If there is any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division, this case against me will be dismissed with prejudice.

    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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

    2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

    3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

    4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

    5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

    ADVERTISEMENT