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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT