ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 9/15/10

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.

Suspension
Derrick D. Eley of Marion County has had his suspension from the practice of law in Indiana converted to an indefinite suspension because of his continued noncooperation with the disciplinary commission, according to an Aug. 27, 2010, Supreme Court order. He was originally suspended Jan. 7, 2010, for failing to cooperating with the commission regarding a grievance filed against him.

Public reprimand
Richard N. Shapiro of Lake County was publicly reprimanded for violating Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(e), according to an Aug. 27, 2010, Supreme Court order approving statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline.

A client hired Shapiro to represent him in an employment dispute. Shapiro sent a letter to the client’s former employer demanding payment of $70,000 under the Indiana Wage Claim Act. In the letter, Shapiro stated that the act was enforced by the Office of the Attorney General, that Shapiro had attended high school with the former attorney general, and that Shapiro therefore did not think he would have much problem in getting his successor’s attention in the matter. Shapiro was cooperative with the Disciplinary Commission, and he has no disciplinary history.

Private reprimand
In the Matter of Anonymous of Clark County, respondent is privately reprimanded for violating Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 5.5(a) for assisting in the unauthorized practice of law in this state, according to a Sept. 3, 2010, Supreme Court per curiam opinion.

Respondent agreed to serve as local counsel for Kentucky attorney John Redelberger who represented an Indiana client. Redelberger did not seek temporary admission to practice law in Indiana, and he and respondent signed and filed an appearance for the client in an action filed in an Indiana trial court. Without respondent, Redelberger signed and served answers to interrogatories and took depositions of witnesses in Indiana.

After Redelberger appeared in court for the client, the judge told respondent that Redelberger wasn’t admitted to practice in this state. Respondent told Redelberger that he must seek temporary admission and sent him a copy of the applicable rule. Neither respondent nor Redelberger followed through in obtaining temporary admission for Redelberger.

There were no aggravating factors. Mitigating facts were respondent had no prior discipline, he cooperated with the disciplinary commission, he did not act from a selfish or dishonest motive, and he is remorseful.

“The participation of Indiana co-counsel in the temporary admission process is of vital importance to this Court’s ability to supervise out-of-state attorneys practicing in this state. This is no minor or perfunctory duty. Not all attorneys seeking temporary admission will be granted the privilege of practicing in Indiana,” the high court wrote.

The court called respondent’s response “inadequate” once he learned Redelberger wasn’t admitted to practice in Indiana.

The Supreme Court noted that Indiana attorneys serving as local counsel for out-of-state attorneys are “advised of the importance of their duty to ensure complete and timely compliance with all the requirements of Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2).”

Reinstatement
Thadd E. Evans of Blackford County has been reinstated to the practice of law in Indiana, according to an Aug. 27, 2010, Supreme Court order.

All justices concurred except Justice Dickson, who dissented to granting the reinstatement.

Lester H. Cohen of Reno, Nev., has been reinstated to practice to law in Indiana on the condition that he fully cure his continuing legal education noncompliance as well as meet his 2010 CLE obligations no later than Dec. 31, 2010, according to an Aug. 27, 2010, Supreme Court order.

Cohen was suspended May 14, 2010, along with several other attorneys who failed to comply with CLE requirements.

Cohen said the noncompliance was caused by health problems and tendered a $200 reinstatement fee as required by Admis. and Disc. R. 29, Sec. 10(b).

Resignation
Willie Harris of Lake County has resigned from the Indiana bar, effective with the Sept. 3, 2010, Supreme Court order accepting his resignation. Any attorney disciplinary proceedings pending against Harris are dismissed as moot. He shall be ineligible to petition for reinstatement to the practice of law for five years.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT