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. Bob Stochel was opposing counsel to me in several federal cases (including a jury trial before Judge Tinder) here in SDIN. He is a very competent defense and trial lawyer who knows federal civil procedure and consumer law quite well. Bob gave us a run for our money when he appeared on a case.

  2. Awesome, Brian! Very proud of you and proud to have you as a partner!

  3. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  4. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  5. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

ADVERTISEMENT