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. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT