ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - Feb. 17-March 1, 2012

IL Staff
February 15, 2012
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.

Interim Suspension
William R. Wallace, of Gibson County, has been suspended pendente lite from the practice of law, according to a Jan. 27 Indiana Supreme Court order. Wallace pleaded guilty in October 2011 to Class D felonies obstruction of justice, possession of child pornography and voyeurism.

The charges stem from Wallace allegedly videotaping himself having sex with a former client and employee without her permission. He allegedly told the client that if the two had sex, he would write off money she owed him for legal fees. When police executed a search warrant of his home they took computers, on which they found child pornography.

The interim suspension will continue until further order of the Supreme Court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect.

Public reprimand
Roger W. Hultquist, of Allen County, has received a public reprimand for violating five Indiana Professional Conduct Rules, according to a Jan. 30 Indiana Supreme Court order.

Hultquist violated Rules 1.3: failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; 1.4(a)(1): failure to promptly inform a client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required; 1.4(a)(4): failure to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information; 1.4(b): failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions; and 1.6(a): revealing information relating to representation of a client without the client’s informed consent.

Two couples retained Hultquist to file a bankruptcy petition for them before certain amendments to the Bankruptcy Code became effective in 2005. Without the clients’ knowledge, Hultquist arranged to pay an employee in attorney Anthony T. Adolf’s office to prepare and file the petitions electronically using software and court authorization Hultquist lacked. This showed Adolf as being the clients’ counsel. Hultquist and Adolf agreed Adolf would file the petitions and Hultquist would later be substituted as counsel. In each case, the couples’ attempts to contact Hultquist throughout the process were mostly unanswered.•

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT