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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT