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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT