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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT