Disciplinary Actions - 5/12

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.


James R. Recker II
of Marion County is suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for no less than one year without automatic reinstatement, according to a May 3, 2010, Supreme Court order approving statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline. The sanction is retroactive to March 28, 2009, which is the effective date of Recker’s interim suspension. The court noted that regardless of the expiration date, Recker shall be ineligible to petition for reinstatement until he completes his executed criminal sentence.

He was suspended for violating Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(b).

The court noted that for Recker’s “serious and serial misconduct” the suspension imposed would have been longer had there been no agreement. If Recker petitions for reinstatement, the court wrote it would be granted only if he meets stringent requirements to prove that his rehabilitation is complete and he can safely re-enter the legal profession, and will likely be granted only with the involvement and monitoring of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.

On Jan. 4, 2008, Recker was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class D felony, and with being a habitual substance offender. On Dec. 17, 2008, he pleaded guilty to OWI as a Class D felony with a habitual offender enhancement. He was sentenced to 1,095 days on the felony conviction, with 180 days executed followed by 365 days of probation on home detention with electronic monitoring. He also received an additional 1,095 days, all executed, as a habitual offender enhancement.

Recker’s disciplinary history includes an incident March 27, 2003, for which he was convicted of OWI, a Class C misdemeanor; and OWI while endangering a person, a Class A misdemeanor. Based on an incident June 9, 2005, he entered a plea of guilty to OWI, a Class D felony. On July 24, 2006, the Supreme Court approved a conditional agreement under which he received a six-month suspension, stayed upon 12 months probation with monitoring by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. See Matter of Recker, 851 N.E.2d 295 (Ind. 2006). Chief Justice Shepard dissented in that matter, believing one year probation was inadequate.

The parties cite Recker’s disciplinary history as an aggravating factor. In mitigation, his misconduct was not directly related to his practice of law, he has expressed remorse, he cooperated with the Disciplinary Commission, and “he has sought treatment to recover from his alcoholism and is currently abstinent from alcohol.”•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?