ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 8/18

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
Curtis E. Shirley of Marion County is suspended form the practice of law in Indiana for 30 days beginning Sept. 17, 2010, according to an Aug. 5, 2010, Supreme Court order approving statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline. He will be automatically reinstated at the end of the suspension period if there are no other suspensions then in effect.

Shirley violated Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 1.5(a); 1.7(a)(1) and (2); 1.13(b), (f), and (g); and 1.16(a)(1). Justice Boehm did not participate in this case.

A certain “corporation” is owned and controlled by members of a large family. The matriarch of the family is elderly and incapacitated. Her son “AB” controlled the day-to-day operations of the business. There are six other siblings with interests in the corporation. In 2001, AB consulted with Shirley about voting control of the corporation and related matters. Thereafter, AB, with the advice and assistance of Shirley, took various actions to obtain and exercise sole control of the corporation, including obtaining his mother’s signature on stock transfers, removing his siblings from the corporation’s board of directors, terminating two siblings from employment with the corporation, and defending against suits brought against him by his siblings. This occurred during a period of several years, during which Shirley purported to represent the interests of both AB and the corporation.

Shirley collected “substantial attorney fees” from the corporation. He agreed the fees were unreasonable because he did not obtain the knowing consent of necessary principals of the corporation to his simultaneous representation, and the corporation paid for a considerable amount of legal work that most likely accrued to AB’s sole benefit. The corporation filed suit against AB and Shirley to recover the fees paid to Shirley; the suit was settled with a confidential agreement for an undisclosed amount.

There were no aggravating factors. Mitigating facts were Shirley has no prior discipline; he has an extensive history of public service, including representing many clients pro bono; and the corporation recovered a satisfactory amount of the attorney fees paid to him.

“From the beginning of Respondent’s involvement with the Corporation, it should have been apparent that AB’s personal interests were at very least potentially adverse to those of the Corporation,” the court wrote. The court also noted the discipline would have been more severe had the matter been submitted without an agreement.

Richard S. Tebik of Lake County was suspended from the practice of law in Indiana Dec. 17, 2009, for failing to cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission regarding a grievance filed against him. The suspension has been converted to an indefinite suspension for continued noncooperation with the disciplinary process, according to an Aug. 4, 2010, Supreme Court order. To be readmitted to the practice of law in Indiana, Tebik must petition the Supreme Court for reinstatement.

Ronald J. Freund of Madison County was suspended from the practice of law in Indiana Dec. 22, 2009, for failing to cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission regarding a grievance filed against him. The suspension has been converted to an indefinite suspension for continued noncooperation with the disciplinary process, according to an Aug. 4, 2010, Supreme Court order. To be readmitted to the practice of law in Indiana, Freund must petition the Supreme Court for reinstatement.

Samuel L. Bolinger of Allen County is suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for 30 days beginning Sept. 10, 2010, according to a Supreme Court order approving statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline. At the conclusion of the suspension – if there are no other suspensions in effect – he shall be automatically reinstated to the practice of law.

The court noted the discipline it would impose would likely have been more severe had the matter been submitted without an agreement; however, the court wrote it desires to “foster agreed resolutions of lawyer disciplinary cases.” All the justices concurred except Chief Justice Shepard and Justice Boehm, who dissented because they believed the discipline to be inadequate.

Bolinger violated Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(c).

Bolinger represented a plaintiff in a civil action in which discovery issues arose. He told the client of the necessity of responding to the discovery requests, often in face-to-face meetings, according to court documents. Bolinger documented these discussions with informal notes. Eventually the court entered a default judgment against the client as a sanction for his failure to comply with a motion to compel discovery. When the client accused Bolinger of failing to respond to discovery requests, Bolinger told his secretary to prepare a series of backdated letters to the client to reflect his earlier advice to the client to respond to the discovery requests. The letters falsely conveyed that they were mailed on prior dates. The letters were sent to the client but never used in any court proceeding.

Mitigating factors are Bolinger has no prior discipline, he cooperated with the commission, and his conduct caused no direct harm to the client.

Patrick G. Boulac of St. Joseph County is suspended pendente lite from the practice of law in Indiana upon notice of a guilty finding, effective with the Aug. 2, 2010, Supreme Court order.

Boulac was found guilty of resisting law enforcement, a Class D felony. The suspension shall continue until further order of the Supreme Court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect.

The court noted he is already suspended under a different cause, No. 71S00-0701-DI-45, effective Jan. 5, 2010.

Ernest M. Beal Jr. of Allen County is suspended pendente lite from the practice of law in Indiana upon notice of a guilty finding, effective with the Aug. 2, 2010, Supreme Court order.

Beal was found guilty of theft, a Class D felony. The suspension shall continue until further order of the Supreme Court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect.

The court noted he is already suspended for failure to pay inactive dues, effective June 8, 2010.

Ronald D. Gifford of Marshall County is suspended pendente lite from the practice of law in Indiana upon notice of a guilty finding, effective with the Aug. 2, 2010, Supreme Court order.

Gifford was found guilty of theft, a Class D felony. The suspension shall continue until further order of the Supreme Court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect.

The court noted he is already suspended under a different cause, No. 50S00-0806-DI-310, effective Nov. 14, 2008.

Ronald D. Harris of Clark County is suspended from the practice of law in Indiana effective with the Aug. 2, 2010, Supreme Court order imposing reciprocal discipline.

Harris, who was admitted to practice law in Indiana and Kentucky, was found by the state of Kentucky to have violated that jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct and was suspended for 61 days. He did not respond to an Indiana Supreme Court order to show cause why he shouldn’t receive reciprocal discipline.

The court noted he is already suspended in Indiana in a different cause, No. 10S00-0811-DI-606, effective March 3, 2009. He also is already under another suspension in Kentucky as well.

If Harris is reinstated to practice in Kentucky, he may file for reinstatement in Indiana provided there is no other suspension order in effect.

Mark A. Ryan of Howard County is suspended from the practice of law in Indiana, effective with the Aug. 2, 2010, Supreme Court order for failure to cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against him.

The suspension shall continue until the executive secretary of the Disciplinary Commission certifies to the Supreme Court that Ryan has cooperated fully with the investigation, the investigation or any related disciplinary proceedings that may arise from the investigation are disposed, or until further order of the Supreme Court. He also is ordered to reimburse the commission $521.72 for the costs of prosecuting this proceeding.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

ADVERTISEMENT