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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT