ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 5/26

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.

Suspensions

256 attorneys are suspended for failing pay the annual registration fee required to be licensed to practice law in Indiana or to file an exemption affidavit as contemplated by Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 2, according to a May 14, 2010, Supreme Court order. The order also suspended certain attorneys who failed to comply with the continuing legal education requirements of Admission and Discipline Rule 29, Sections 3 or 10.

Although the suspension is effective on the date of the order for purposes of reinstatement procedures, the proscription against the actual practice of law will go into effect at 11:59 p.m. June 7, 2010. The delay will allow time for copies of the order to be sent, received, and acted upon by suspended attorneys.

To be reinstated, an attorney must comply with applicable reinstatement procedures and by paying any applicable penalties. The reinstatement procedure for nonpayment of attorney fees is in Ind. Admis. and Disc. R. 2(h). The reinstatement procedure for failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements in found in Ind. Admis. and Disc. R. 29, Section 10(b).

If the Disciplinary Commission decided sufficient reasons existed to grant requests for extensions of time in which to comply with the continuing legal education requirements, those attorneys’ names were not included in the order, the court noted.

The list can be found at www.in.gov/judiciary/orders/other.

Public reprimand
Stacy L. Kelley of Marion County has been publicly reprimanded, according to a May 7, 2010, Supreme Court order approving statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline.

Kelley violated Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(g).

In June 2008, Kelley began receiving on her unlisted phone number persistent pre-recorded messages from a company seeking a person by the name of Kelley’s husband. She and her husband agreed that she would call the company at the toll-free number given in the messages. Accordingly, she called the number and spoke to a male representative of the company, identifying her husband as a client. Noting what she thought was a feminine-sounding voice, she gratuitously asked the company’s representative if he was “gay” or “sweet,” according to court documents. After the representative commented on the unprofessional nature of this inquiry, the phone conversation ended abruptly.

Mitigating facts are Kelley has no disciplinary history; she cooperated with the Disciplinary Commission; she has a history of providing service to the legal profession; her comments were made after enduring harassing phone calls to her home; and she demonstrated remorse by apologizing to the company representative.•

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT