ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 7/20/11

Back to TopCommentsE-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.

Suspension
Kevin B. Relphorde of Lake County has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for a period of not less than 180 days, without automatic reinstatement. The suspension, filed in a Supreme Court order June 30, 2011, begins Aug. 5, 2011. While representing a client in a public defender capacity, Relphorde accepted $1,000 from the client’s father. He has a history of prior discipline, including the same type of misconduct addressed here. Relphorde violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.11(d) which prohibits negotiating for private employment in a matter in which the lawyer was participating as a public employee or officer.

Stacy H. Sheedy of Marion County has been suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately. In a Supreme Court order filed June 30, 2011, Sheedy was suspended for noncooperation with the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(3), the suspension shall continue until the executive secretary of the disciplinary commission certifies to the court that Sheedy has cooperated fully with the investigation, the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of, or until further order of the Supreme Court.

Jerry T. Drook of Grant County has been suspended from the practice of law for 30 days with automatic reinstatement. The suspension, filed in a Supreme Court order June 29, 2011, begins Aug. 10, 2011. While visiting a client awaiting trial for the murder of his wife, Drook gave the client candy and written material that had not been authorized by the jail authorities. Drook was charged with two counts of trafficking with an inmate. The disciplinary action is based on a violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) which prohibits committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

Andrew E. Clark of Marion County has had a suspension currently in effect for noncooperation with the disciplinary process, ordered on Nov. 3, 2010, converted to an indefinite suspension. The Supreme Court order, filed on June 30, 2011, was effective immediately. To be readmitted to the practice of law in Indiana, the order said that Clark must cure the causes of all suspensions in effect and successfully petition this court for reinstatement pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4) and (18).•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT