ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 6/9

Back to TopE-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.

Suspensions
Jimmie D. Bowlin Jr. of Montgomery County is suspended from the practice of law in Indiana effective May 28, 2010, for failure to cooperate with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against him. He did not respond to the court’s order to show cause why he should not be suspended.

Pursuant to Admis. and Disc. R. 23(10)(f)(3), the suspension shall continue until the Disciplinary Commission executive secretary certifies to the court that Bowlin has cooperated fully with the investigation; the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed; or until further order of the Supreme Court.
____________

Bruce A. Lambka of Lake County is suspended from the practice of law in Indiana effective May 28, 2010, for failure to cooperate with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against him. Lambka did not respond to the court’s order to show cause why he should not be suspended.

Pursuant to Admis. and Disc. R. 23(10)(f)(3), the suspension shall continue until the Disciplinary Commission executive secretary certifies to the court that Lambka has cooperated fully with the investigation; the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed; or until further order of the Supreme Court.

Resignation
Samuel C. Hasler of Madison County has resigned from the Indiana bar, effective with the May 20, 2010, Supreme Court order accepting his resignation. Any disciplinary proceedings pending against him are dismissed as moot.

Hasler shall be ineligible to petition for reinstatement to the practice of law in Indiana for five years from the date of the court’s order. Approval of a petition for reinstatement is discretionary and requires clear and convincing evidence of the petitioner’s remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law.

Public Reprimands
Gillian S. DePrez of Marion County was publicly reprimanded for violating Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(b), according to a May 20, 2010, Supreme Court order approving statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline.

Based on an incident on July 11, 2009, DePrez pleaded guilty to reckless driving, a Class B misdemeanor. A charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated was dismissed. At the time of the incident, she was a Marion County deputy prosecutor. She resigned from her position shortly after her arrest. DePrez sought alcohol evaluation and education, and no further treatment was recommended. She has no disciplinary history.
____________

Brooke N. Russell of Marion County was publicly reprimanded for violating Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(b), according to a May 20, 2010, Supreme Court order approving statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline.

While employed as a Marion County deputy prosecutor, Russell was arrested for and eventually pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.15 percent or more, a Class A misdemeanor. She sought alcohol evaluation and completed a 12-hour education program at St. Vincent Stress Center. She is no longer employed as a deputy prosecutor and has no disciplinary history.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT