ILNews

Disciplinary commission seeks suspension of former clerk’s law license

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than a month after former Lake County clerk Thomas R. Philpot was sentenced to serve 18 months for theft and mail fraud convictions, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission has requested his law license be suspended by the Supreme Court.

The disciplinary commission filed a notice of finding of guilt and request for suspension Monday, initiating a disciplinary case. Philpot, 55, of Highland, was convicted in September of taking more than $24,000 from federal funds for child support that he oversaw as clerk from December 2004 to November 2009. He used the money to pay himself bonuses without authorization from the county council.  

In February, Philpot was ordered to surrender to begin serving his sentence Wednesday. He also will serve two years of supervised release after completing his prison sentence.

The Indiana Roll of Attorneys currently lists Philpot as active in good standing with no completed disciplinary history. He was admitted to the bar in June 2001 and has a law practice in Hammond. Prior to serving as clerk for Lake County for eight years, he was the county’s coroner for eight years.

There is no timeline for when the Indiana Supreme Court may take any action on the disciplinary commission’s request.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT