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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT