ILNews

Ex-prosecutor candidate wants to resign from bar

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An attorney and former Democratic candidate for prosecutor in Gibson County who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and possession of child pornography tendered his resignation from the bar during a disciplinary hearing in open court Tuesday.

G. Michael Witte, executive director of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, confirmed that William Wallace III told hearing officer Timothy Crowley he wants to resign from the bar. Wallace was in Knox County for a proceeding in a disciplinary case filed against him.

Wallace was ordered to register as a sex offender following his guilty plea to the Class D felonies, which would be entered as Class A misdemeanors after successful completion of probation and no other arrests or convictions during this time, based on his plea agreement.

Wallace was indicted in June 2010 on charges of Class D felonies obstruction of justice and possession of child pornography, Class A misdemeanor patronizing a prostitute, and Class B misdemeanor false informing. He also faced a Class D felony voyeurism charge. The charges stem from Wallace allegedly videotaping himself having sex with a former client and employee without her permission. He allegedly told the client that if the two had sex, he would write off money she owed him for legal fees. When police executed a search warrant of his home, they took computers, on which they found child pornography.

Witte said he normally could not comment on pending disciplinary actions, but could do so in this case because Crowley announced Wallace’s resignation in open court and on the record.

It is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to accept the resignation. If it does, Wallace will be unable to petition for reinstatement for five years, and the reinstatement process can take up to one to two years, Witte said.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Could have been a contender?
    Interesting to note that had his secrets remained secret, William Wallace III could have entered elected office, could have risen through the ranks, could have even become a judge. And then he would have been well protected, beyond reproach, it would seem, by operation of the old boy network. In this case his secrets slipped out too early to afford him much protection by The System.

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT