ILNews

Disciplinary Commission overreached, justices agree

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Ohio attorney who argued his disciplinary case in a rare public forum before the Indiana Supreme Court prevailed as justices said the Indiana Disciplinary Commission’s arguments failed.   

Derek Farmer’s attorney claimed before the court in October that Ohio colleagues who argued on his behalf said that they believed his past and race were being used against him, because Farmer had been cleared in the same matter by Ohio’s attorney discipline authorities.

The Indiana Supreme Court opinion in State of Indiana Ex Rel., Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission v. Derek A. Farmer, 94S00-1103-MS-165, didn’t broach those arguments, but justices rejected charges the commission brought against Farmer. He had been accused of the unauthorized practice of law, and the commission also charged that he could not have reasonably expected to be authorized to practice.

“The commission has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that an injunction should issue against Farmer. Accordingly, the court denies the Commission’s verified petition,” the per curiam opinion says. It was signed by all justices except Steven David, who concurred without a separate opinion. “The costs and expenses incurred by the hearing in this matter shall be borne by the Commission,” the court wrote.

Farmer is the only attorney in Ohio admitted to practice after a conviction in connection with a murder. He was convicted as a young accomplice in the 1974 murder of a civil-rights figure and a Dayton police officer. Farmer was 16 at the time and running with an 18-year-old relative who pulled the trigger in both killings after the pair robbed a jewelry store. Farmer served 18 years in prison, earning a college degree, and later completed law school. He was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1999.

“In the present proceeding, a federal judge and an attorney in Ohio who testified regarding Farmer’s good character and competence as an attorney stated that they would have provided an affidavit supporting Farmer’s request for temporary admission in Indiana if he had made one before or after his Ohio suspension,” the court wrote.

“Under these circumstances and in light of the discretion exercised by trial courts in ruling on motions for temporary admission under Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2), the Court concludes that the commission has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that, due to the pending disciplinary proceeding in Ohio, Farmer could not have reasonably expected to be authorized” to practice, the court wrote.

The commission also failed to prove that Farmer’s services to an Indiana client seeking post-conviction relief violated the “safe harbor” provision in Rule 5.5(c) that allows attorneys to practice in multistate jurisdictions “on a temporary basis” in some circumstances.

“Here, the charged conduct of Farmer involves occasional visits to Indiana for a single client in a single legal matter, not multiple matters or clients or any systematic or continuous presence in Indiana. Under these circumstances, the court concludes that the Commission has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Farmer’s provision of legal service to (the client) was more than ‘temporary.’”
 

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