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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT