ILNews

Disciplinary Actions -3/2/12

IL Staff
February 29, 2012
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.

Public reprimand
Kenneth D. Faw, of Fayette County, has received a public reprimand by the Indiana Supreme Court, per a Feb. 15, 2012, order. Faw, as prosecutor of Fayette County, decided to personally handle a matter involving the arrest of the husband of a prosecutor’s office employee instead of appointing a special prosecutor. Faw spoke to the officer who arrested the husband for theft and no criminal charges were filed.

Faw has no disciplinary history, was cooperative with the Disciplinary Commission, and is remorseful. The justices issued the public reprimand for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(a)(2), which prohibits representing a client (the state) when the representation may be materially limited by the attorney’s own self-interest or the attorney’s responsibilities to a third person.

Suspension
Jacob A. Atanga, of Marion County, has been suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court, effective immediately, per a Feb. 15, 2012, order. On Nov. 22, 2011, the Supreme Court ordered Atanga to show cause why he shouldn’t be immediately suspended for failure to cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against him.

He has been suspended for noncooperation with the commission, which will continue until further order of the Supreme Court. The justices ordered he reimburse the commission $505.79 for costs in prosecuting the matter.

Deborah S.D. Julian, of Johnson County, has been suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court, effective immediately, per a Feb. 15, 2012, order. On Dec. 20, 2011, the Supreme Court ordered Julian to show cause as to why she shouldn’t be immediately suspended for failure to cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission’s investigation into a grievance filed against her. She has been suspended for noncooperation with the commission, which will continue until the Disciplinary Commission verifies that she has fully cooperated with the investigation; the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or until further order of the Supreme Court. The justices ordered she reimburse the commission $523.21 for costs in prosecuting the matter.

Resignation
Neil E. Holbrook, of St. Joseph County, has resigned from the bar, effectively immediately. The justices accepted the resignation in a Feb. 15, 2012, order. Any pending attorney disciplinary proceedings have been dismissed as moot.

Thomas F. Lewis III, of St. Joseph County, has resigned from the bar, effective immediately. The justices accepted the resignation in a Feb. 15, 2012, order. Any pending attorney disciplinary proceedings have been dismissed as moot.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • disproportionate ??
    Is it my imagination or do lawyers in St Joe county get censored a lot? Marion county must have at least ten times the lawyers and about the same number of headlines. I'm a fan of St Joe county btw, jest wondering if there's a tendency downstate to want to spank people up here more often??? I suppose if we knew the number of complaints filed per county and could compare it to lawyer population that would be interesting. is there any such info published ??

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