ILNews

Evansville attorney suspended from practice of law

Rebecca Berfanger
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court Monday suspended Evansville attorney Bradley Happe from the practice of law, effective immediately until further order of the court. Happe was arrested in March, accused of having a meth lab in his law office and apartment.

Indiana Lawyer reported in its May 2 issue that on April 26, the Disciplinary Commission asked the Supreme Court to issue an order of interim suspension because two-thirds of the commission voted that Happe may pose a threat to his clients, and if the alleged misconduct charges are true he would be sanctioned under the Admission and Disciplinary Rules.

In the June 4 order, the court grants the petition and orders that Happe "be suspended pendente lite from the practice of law in this state, effective immediately." Happe must now fulfill the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23 (26).

On May 25, The Evansville Courier Press reported "Verdelski Miller, Happe's attorney and a Happe family friend, orally withdrew from the case. ... Attorney Gerald Fuchs will take over Happe's case."

Happe's trial date is June 11, which Judge Wayne Trockman told the Evansville paper will likely be reset for Oct. 8.

Another Evansville attorney, Teresa Perry, was arrested in May for eight counts related to possessing and distributing methamphetamine after she allegedly sold drugs to a police informant, The Evansville Courier Press reported. Her next court appearance is June 13 and a trial in the case is scheduled to begin July 18.
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