ILNews

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.

Suspension

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.”•
 

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