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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT