ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 3/30/11

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.

Reinstatement
James R. Kilburn of Scott County has been reinstated to the practice of law in Indiana, effective immediately, in a Supreme Court order filed March 21, 2011. He was suspended in an order dated March 10, 2011, for failure to satisfy costs ordered in connection with lawyer discipline proceedings. He has paid in full the amount owed along with a $200 reinstatement fee.

Suspension
Daniel E. Serban of Huntington County has been suspended pendent elite from the practice of law in Indiana, effective 15 days from the March 18, 2011, order date. The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed “a ‘Verified Emergency Petition For Order of Interim Suspension Pursuant To Indiana Admis. Disc. R. 23(11.1)(b)’ asking that Serban be immediately suspended from the practice of law in Indiana pending further order of the Supreme Court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, due to alleged misconduct that may cause his continued practice of law during the pendency of a disciplinary investigation or proceeding to pose a substantial threat of harm to the public, clients, potential clients, or the administration of justice.” Serban stated he is willing to cooperate fully in the resolution of the matter.

Deborah D. Kubley of Monroe County has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana, effective immediately, in a Supreme Court order filed March 18, 2011. Kubley was suspended for noncooperation with the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. Kubley is already under a suspension order issued by the court and effective Dec. 27, 2010.

Timothy A. Doyle of Marion County has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana, effective immediately, in a Supreme Court order filed March 18, 2011. Doyle was suspended for noncooperation with the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.

In a Supreme Court order filed March 10, 2011, the following attorneys were suspended from the practice of law in Indiana, effective 10 days from the date of the order, for failure to pay costs assessed in a disciplinary action by the due date of the attorney’s annual registration fee (Oct. 1):

Darren T. Cole of Cedar Hills, Utah;

Timothy A. Doyle of Marion County;

Kjell P. Engebretsen of Boone County;

James R. Kilburn of Scott County (reinstated March 21).

In a Supreme Court order filed March 10, 2011, the petition to suspend the following attorneys from the practice of law in Indiana for failure to pay costs assessed in a disciplinary action by the due date of the attorney’s annual registration fee (Oct. 1) was dismissed because all costs have been paid in full:

Tia R. Brewer of Shelby County;

Terrance L. Kinnard of Marion County;

Bruce A. Lambka of Lake County;

Trina Saunders of Marion County;

Daniel E. Serban of Huntington County.

Public reprimand
Daniel F. Zielinski of Hendricks County received a public reprimand in a Supreme Court order filed March 21, 2011. Zielinski violated the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct: 1.8(a) – entering into a business transaction (a fee renegotiation) with a client unless the client is given written advice of the desirability of seeking the advice of independent counsel and the client consents in writing to the transaction; and 1.16(d) – failure to refund an unearned fee.

Janine L. Sutton of Madison County received a public reprimand in a Supreme Court order filed March 18, 2011. Sutton violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d) which prohibits engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Sutton was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated while employed by the Madison County prosecutor’s office. She completed a deferral program and the case was dismissed. Sutton resigned from her position with the Prosecutor’s Office and voluntarily participated in services from the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.•
 

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT