ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 9/14/11

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.

Reinstatement
Anna E. Fulkerson of Noble County was reinstated as a member of the Indiana bar in a Supreme Court order filed Aug. 24, 2011. Fulkerson was suspended on Sept. 14, 2009, without automatic reinstatement. Her reinstatement was subject to the following conditions: (1) successful completion of probation of at least two years on terms to be determined by JLAP, consistent with the hearing officer’s recommendations; (2) she has no violations of the terms set by JLAP, the law, or the Rules of Professional Conduct during the probation period; and (3) if she violates her probation, the commission may petition the court to revoke her probation and to re-impose the suspension without automatic reinstatement. Probation remains in effect until terminated pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17.1).

Suspension
Todd E. Wallsmith of Knox County has been suspended from the practice of law in a Supreme Court order filed Aug. 19, 2011. Wallsmith is suspended for a period of 180 days, beginning Sept. 30, with 45 days actively served and the remainder stayed subject to completion of 24 months of probation with mental health treatment and JLAP monitoring. Wallsmith violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.2(a): Failure to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation; 1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; 1.7(a): Representing a client when the representation is directly adverse to another client; and 3.3(a)(1): Knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal and failing to correct a false statement of material fact previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.

Timothy D. Freeman of Marion County has been suspended from the practice of law for noncooperation with the disciplinary commission. The suspension, provided in an order filed Aug. 19, 2011, was effective immediately. Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(3), the suspension will continue until: (1) the executive secretary of the disciplinary commission certifies to the court that Freeman has cooperated fully with the investigation; (2) the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or (3) until further order of the court, provided no other suspensions are in effect. Freeman was already under a suspension order that became effective July 19, 2011.

Jacob A. Atanga of Marion County has been suspended from the practice of law for noncooperation with the disciplinary commission. The suspension, provided in an order filed Aug. 19, 2011, was effective immediately. Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(3), the suspension will continue until: (1) the executive secretary of the disciplinary commission certifies to the court that Freeman has cooperated fully with the investigation; (2) the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or (3) until further order of the court, provided no other suspensions are in effect.

Bruce J. Goldberg of Floyd County has been suspended from the practice of law in a Supreme Court order filed Aug. 24, 2011. Goldberg is suspended for a period of 90 days, beginning Sept. 16, with 30 days actively served and the remainder stayed subject to completion of two years of probation. Goldberg was found to have violated Indiana Admission and Discipline Rules 23(29)(a)(2) and (3): Failure to maintain proper records for trust account activities; 23(29)(a)(4): Failure to deposit funds received on behalf of clients intact; 23(29)(a)(5): Making withdrawals from a trust account without written withdrawal authorization stating the amount and purpose of the withdrawal and the payee; and Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.15(a): Failure to hold property of clients properly in trust, failure to hold property of clients separate from lawyer’s own property, failure to safeguard client funds, and failure to maintain complete records of client trust account funds. While the court said the terms of probation will include correction of all trust account errors, trust account monitoring, and a designated number of CLE hours on trust account and law office management, it did note that nothing in the complaint or conditional agreement suggests that any client funds were lost due to Goldberg’s misconduct.

Kjell P. Engebretsen of Boone County has been suspended from the practice of law for noncooperation with the disciplinary commission. The suspension, provided in an order filed Sept. 2, 2011, was effective immediately. Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(3), the suspension will continue until: (1) the executive secretary of the disciplinary commission certifies to the court that Freeman has cooperated fully with the investigation; (2) the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or (3) until further order of the court, provided no other suspensions are in effect. Engebretsen was already under a suspension order that became effective March 19, 2011.

Edward A. B. Castaldo of Hamilton County has been suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than 90 days, effective immediately. The suspension, provided in a Supreme Court order filed Sept. 2, 2011, revoked Castaldo’s probation ordered by the court in 2009 and imposed suspension that had been stayed pending the lawyer’s completion of a 24-month probationary period with specified requirements. According to the Sept. 2 order, Castaldo materially violated the terms of the JLAP monitoring agreement and failed to attend a trust account management course, as previously ordered. He was already under a suspension order that became effective June 20, 2011.

Public reprimand
Danny L. Whitten and Stacey E. Whitten of Porter County received a public reprimand in a Supreme Court order filed Aug. 19, 2011. Both published an advertisement promoting themselves as “specializing in bankruptcy relief” when neither had been certified as a specialist by an independent certifying organization accredited by the Indiana Commission for Continuing Legal Education. This was in violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 7.4(d) (formerly Rule 7.2(c)(4))•

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. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  2. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  3. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

  4. My dear Smith, I was beginning to fear, from your absense, that some Obrien of the Nanny State had you in Room 101. So glad to see you back and speaking truth to power, old chum.

  5. here is one from Reason magazine. these are not my words, but they are legitimate concerns. http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc quote: "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds, has issued a new "intelligence report" announcing that "an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) -- a 244% jump." To illustrate how dangerous these groups are, the Center cites some recent arrests of right-wing figures for planning or carrying out violent attacks. But it doesn't demonstrate that any of the arrestees were a part of the Patriot milieu, and indeed it includes some cases involving racist skinheads, who are another movement entirely. As far as the SPLC is concerned, though, skinheads and Birchers and Glenn Beck fans are all tied together in one big ball of scary. The group delights in finding tenuous ties between the tendencies it tracks, then describing its discoveries in as ominous a tone as possible." --- I wonder if all the republicans that belong to the ISBA would like to know who and why this outfit was called upon to receive such accolades. I remember when they were off calling Trent Lott a bigot too. Preposterous that this man was brought to an overwhelmingly republican state to speak. This is a nakedly partisan institution and it was a seriously bad choice.

ADVERTISEMENT