ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 3/2/11

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.

Resignation
Ernest M. Beal Jr. of Allen County has resigned from the Indiana bar. Beals resignation was accepted effective immediately in a Supreme Court order filed Feb. 10, 2011. Beals is ineligible to petition for reinstatement to the practice of law in Indiana for five years.

Suspension
Patrick K. Rocchio of Branch County, Mich., has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for a period of not less than 180 days, without automatic reinstatement, in a Supreme Court per curiam filed Feb. 11, 2011. The suspension was effective immediately. According to the court, Rocchio violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 7.2(c)(3) and (d)(2) by including in a public communication a statement intended or likely to create an unjustified expectation and statistical data or other information based on past performance or prediction of future success; Rule 7.3(c) by using a written solicitation for professional employment without labeling it as “Advertising Material” and filing it with the commission; and Rule 5.5(b)(2) by falsely representing on his websites that he was licensed to practice law in Indiana when his license was inactive.

In its order, the court stated that this attorney misconduct, standing alone, would warrant a sanction in the lowest range. However, it said Rocchio’s conduct during the disciplinary process demonstrated his inability to recognize his clear violations of Indiana’s disciplinary rules, his contempt for those rules and the process, and his lack of appreciation for the role of the court hearing officer and the disciplinary commission members and staff.

Public reprimand
Heather McClure O’Farrell of Hamilton County has received a public reprimand in a Supreme Court per curiam filed Feb. 11, 2011. The court concluded that by charging nonrefundable flat fees, O’Farrell violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(a) which prohibits making agreements for and charging unreasonable fees.•

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT