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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT