ILNews

Disciplinary Actions - 1/29/14

January 29, 2014
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.

Reinstatement
Earl C. Mullins Jr. has been conditionally reinstated to the practice of law in Indiana, per a Jan. 16 order. He was suspended Sept. 6, 2013, based on his suspension in Kentucky. Mullins’ probationary reinstatement here is subject to compliance with the terms of his probation in Kentucky. When he is released from probation there, he may file a petition to terminate probation in Indiana.

Patrick V. Baker, of Marion County, has been reinstated to the practice of law in Indiana, per a Jan. 16 order. Baker was suspended in October 2011. Baker shall pay any costs owed under Admis. Disc. R. 23(18)(d).

Resignation
Michael K. Bonnell, of Owen County, has resigned from the bar, effective Jan. 16. His affidavit of resignation requires an acknowledgement that there is presently pending an investigation into or a proceeding involving allegations of misconduct and that Bonnell could not successfully defend himself if prosecuted. Any pending disciplinary matters are dismissed as moot. He must wait five years before petitioning for reinstatement. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against Bonnell.

Franklin A. Safrin, of Hamilton County, has resigned from the bar, effective Jan. 16. His affidavit of resignation requires an acknowledgement that there is presently pending an investigation into or a proceeding involving allegations of misconduct and that Safrin could not successfully defend himself if prosecuted. Any pending disciplinary matters are dismissed as moot. He must wait five years before petitioning for reinstatement. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against Safrin.•

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT