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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

    2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

    3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

    4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

    5. 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

    ADVERTISEMENT