ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - Aug. 3, 2011

IL Staff
August 3, 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.

SUSPENSIONS
Bruce A. Lambka of Lake County has been suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than one year and six months, without automatic reinstatement. The suspension, filed in a Supreme Court order July 21, 2011, begins Sept. 2, 2011. Lambka stopped communicating with a client, resulting in the client’s failure to appear at court-ordered mediation and for trial. Judgment was ordered against the client, and he later received a notice of contempt.

The court found Lambka violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; and 8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court also noted that he had a lengthy history of suspensions from practice.

Stephen P. Wolfe of Grant County has been suspended pendente lite from the practice of law, effective immediately. The suspension, filed in a Supreme Court order July 20, 2011, results from Wolfe being found guilty of three counts of Class D felony theft. Wolfe was already under a suspension for nonpayment of his annual registration fee.

Kristin R. Willadsen of Delaware County has been suspended from the practice of law for a period of 180 days, stayed subject to completion of two years of probation with Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program monitoring under terms and conditions set forth in a conditional agreement. In a Supreme Court order July 20, 2011, the effective date of the suspension, the court ordered the suspension for the violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) which prohibits committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

Willadsen appeared in Knightstown Town Court on Nov. 11, 2010, where she slurred her speech and appeared unsteady on her feet. She was arrested for and pleaded guilty to public intoxication, and she later self-reported her arrest and conviction of the Class B misdemeanor to the commission.

James D. Nafe Jr. of St. Joseph County has been suspended from the practice of law for noncooperation with the commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against him, effective immediately. In a Supreme Court order July 20, 2011, the court directed that, pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(3), the suspension shall continue until: (1) the executive secretary of the disciplinary commission certifies to the court that Nafe has cooperated fully with the investigation; (2) the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or (3) until further order of the court, provided there are no other suspensions in effect.

Timothy D. Freeman of Marion County has been suspended from the practice of law for noncooperation with the commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against him, effective immediately. In a Supreme Court order July 19, 2011, the court directed that, pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(3), the suspension shall continue until: (1) the executive secretary of the disciplinary commission certifies to the court that Freeman has cooperated fully with the investigation; (2) the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or (3) until further order of the court, provided there are no other suspensions in effect.•
 

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. 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.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT