ILNews

Disciplinary Actions

IL Staff
July 6, 2011
Keywords
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
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.•
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT