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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT