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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT