ILNews

Disciplinary Actions 8/28/13

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
Douglas S. Followell, of Sullivan, has been suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than 150 days, without automatic reinstatement, beginning Sept. 27, 2013.

Followell was on probation imposed by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2009, with monitoring by the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, as a result of his conviction of three alcohol-related crimes that year. The court order provided that violation of the probation would result in the commission filing a motion to revoke the probation and request that Followell actively serve a 180-day suspension (30 days actively served) that had been stayed subject to the completion of probation. In May 2012, Followell was convicted of driving under the influence in Florida. On May 9, the commission filed a verified motion to revoke Followell’s probation, pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17.2)(a), asserting his arrest and conviction violated the conditions of his probation.

Jeremy S. Brenman, of Bloomington, has been suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, for noncooperation with the Disciplinary Commission. On May 2, the Indiana Supreme Court ordered Brenman, who is already under suspension orders, to show cause why he should not be suspended for failure to cooperate with the investigation of a grievance filed against him. Brenman did not respond within 10 days of service of the order. The order also includes reimbursement to the commission of $512.22 by Brenman for the costs of prosecuting the proceeding.

Patricia S. Beecher, of Gary, has been suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, due to disability, pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(25). In addition to the Verified Petition to Determine Disability submitted by the Disciplinary Commission prior to suspension, Beecher had submitted an Affidavit of Consent to Disability Suspension.

Dan J. May, of Kokomo, has been suspended from the practice of law for 60 days, beginning Sept. 27, 2013. At the conclusion of the suspension, provided there are no other suspensions in effect, May will be automatically reinstated, subject to the conditions of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4)(c). Costs of the proceeding are also assessed against May.

The suspension stems from May’s actions following a hearing in a divorce case. He grabbed his client by the arms, pushing him in a way that caused him to be bent backward over the courtroom rail. May was charged with battery and entered into a pre-trial diversion agreement with the prosecutor.

Resignation
The resignation from the Indiana bar of Shane E. Beal, of Marion, has been accepted, effective immediately, by the Indiana Supreme Court. Beal is ineligible to petition for reinstatement for five years from the Aug. 14, 2013, order date. The order states that the egregious misconduct charged in the verified complaint would have resulted in permanent disbarment had Beal not chosen voluntary resignation from the bar, and if he seeks reinstatement the misconduct admitted in his affidavit of resignation, as well as any other allegations of misconduct, will be addressed in the reinstatement process.

Any attorney disciplinary proceedings pending against Beal were dismissed as moot because of his resignation, and the costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

The resignation from the Indiana bar of William R. Wallace III, of Princeton, has been accepted, effective immediately, by the Indiana Supreme Court. Wallace is ineligible to petition for reinstatement for five years from the Aug. 14, 2013, order date. The order states that the egregious misconduct charged in the verified complaint would have resulted in permanent disbarment had Wallace not chosen voluntary resignation from the bar, and if he seeks reinstatement the misconduct admitted in his affidavit of resignation, as well as any other allegations of misconduct, will be addressed in the reinstatement process.

Any attorney disciplinary proceedings pending against Wallace were dismissed as moot because of his resignation, and the costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.•
 

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. 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