Disciplinary Actions

IL Staff
July 6, 2011
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.

Timothy A. Doyle of Marion County has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for failure to cooperate with the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against him. The suspension, delivered in a Supreme Court order filed June 23, 2011, was effective immediately. Doyle was already under suspension orders issued by the court in March.

Barbara A. Transki of LaPorte County has been suspended from the practice of law for a period not less than six months, without automatic reinstatement. The suspension, delivered in a Supreme Court order filed June 23, 2011, is effective Aug. 5. Transki violated the following Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3 – failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; 1.4(a) – failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly respond to reasonable requests for information; 1.4(b) – failure to explain matter to extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions; 3.3(a)(1) – knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal; 8.1(a) – knowingly making a false statement of material fact to the disciplinary commission in connection with a disciplinary matter; 8.1(b) – failure to respond in a timely manner to the commission’s demands for information; and 8.4(c) – engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The hearing officer recommended six months suspension, with 30 days served and the rest stayed subject to two years of probation, but the court imposed a stronger penalty because Transki fabricated a document to mislead the commission.•


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. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit