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. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  2. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  3. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  4. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

  5. "...not those committed in the heat of an argument." If I ever see a man physically abusing a woman or a child and I'm close enough to intercede I will not ask him why he is abusing her/him. I will give him a split second to cease his attack and put his hands in the air while I call the police. If he continues, I will still call the police but to report, "Man down with a gunshot wound,"instead.

ADVERTISEMENT