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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT