ILNews

Failure to report

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The arm of the Indiana Supreme Court that enforces rules governing the admission and discipline of lawyers has been in violation of one of those rules for several years.

The Disciplinary Commission hasn’t produced an annual report in recent years, Supreme Court spokewoman Kathryn Dolan confirmed. The last annual report posted on the commission’s website as of IL deadline was from fiscal year 2009-2010.

“The reports weren’t put online because they’re not ready yet,” Dolan said. “We’re not trying to make a statement about why, it just wasn’t done. It was an oversight.”

Admission and Discipline Rule 23(23) states, “The commission shall make an annual report of its activities to the Supreme Court and the Indiana State Bar Association. The report shall include a statement of income and expenses for the year.”

While the commission didn’t meet the requirements of the rule, Dolan said financial information for those years was provided to the court, but not the state bar. She said the financial information was provided to the bar last week after the error was discovered.

The commission derives its revenue almost exclusively from a portion of the licensing fees attorneys are required to pay to retain their bar status.

According to financial information provided by Dolan, the commission had more money in the bank in the 2012-2013 fiscal year than in any previous year – an opening fund balance of $1,606,403. The commission budgeted collecting about $2 million in fees and spending about $2.3 million. Employee salaries, benefits and associated costs consumed about $1.9 million of the budget.

The information projected the commission would carry over an opening balance of about $1.45 million into the current fiscal year.

Disciplinary Commission executive director Michael Witte did not respond to messages seeking comment about the absence of annual reports.

Indiana State Bar Association President Dan Vinovich said the association received financial information from the commission last week. “Once it was determined those reports needed to be filed, they have now been filed,” he said.

Vinovich said the annual report was a “technical requirement and not a significant problem or concern of ours.” He noted the state bar receives advance notice of attorney suspensions, for instance, and updates on court functions from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Office of the Attorney General at annual meetings and other forums.

Officers in local bar associations who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity said the commission’s failure to file annual reports was disappointing.

“Is it catastrophic? No,” said an officer of one of the state’s largest county bar associations. But the problem is one of perception of the commission: “They expect everyone to follow the rules. They should do the same.”

An attorney in southern Indiana who holds a county bar leadership post agreed. “I’m surprised,” the commission neglected to file reports for thee years, the officer said. “They should do that.”

But the local bar officers said most attorneys in their communities had a generally positive view of the commission’s work and that local bar groups usually are well informed of disciplinary actions or matters affecting local attorneys.

“I think (lawyers) are respectful of the commission and the responsibility they have,” the southern Indiana bar officer said.

“I would say attorneys as a whole view the Disciplinary Commission as doing a good job,” said the large-county bar official. “Perhaps the commission needs to work on some transparency issues. I think that’s what we all should be striving for.”

The work of the commission has been included in the annual reports prepared by the Supreme Court, but that section in the court’s most recent report for fiscal year 2011-2012 contains no financial information. The commission reported 66 final orders in discipline cases. A total of 34 verified complaints for disciplinary action were initiated that fiscal year, 29 less than the prior year.

Commission chairwoman Catherine Nestrick said a new case management system implemented to better track cases resulted in the delay in completing annual reports.

“As with many software implementations, we had a number of issues to work through and this caused a delay in the preparation and publication of the 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 annual reports,” Nestrick said in an email. She noted the 2009-2010 report was only this summer reconciled with the new system and posted online.

“The remaining reports are in the process of being finalized and we expect them to be available very soon,” she said. Dolan said the reports will be posted online when they are completed.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Not just about me ...
    I am not admitted in Indiana and will not be since i am a whistleblower, and so I can say these things. I doubt KS will punch my ticket just because Indiana asks for me to be disbarred, we have a little thing called rule of law for attorneys in Kansas . ... a concept that I hope Indiana gets around to one fine day. Anyway, consider the above and then consider that the DC likely routinely investigates and punishes Indiana attorneys for failure to respond to clients and courts. Hypocrite much?
  • Even more irony!
    As I chew on this the taste becomes even more bitter! I was a Dept AG for 4 years in Kansas, serving the most conservative AG in that state's history. We took on Planned Parenthood, which should not be done lightly. They hit back very hard and very personally. Anyway, for 4 years I was under a statutory demand that I report to the state legislature and governor each year. It was onerous, and often kept me up all night and in the office all weekend, but I got it done each year. And yet, even though I so served with distinction, never was disciplined, and was in good standing in Kansas, deemed admittable anywhere by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, cleared on character and fitness by Missouri the year before, and admitted to the Seventh Circuit and ND Ind fed court after .... the Indiana BLE, using a DC attorney, denied me entrance and denied me the right to even petition again for five years .... and then they went years and years without even filing their statutorily mandated reports, the lack of filing being such an act that should forfeit their right to hold the office entrusted to them by the operation of the state constitution! IRONIC!
  • Oh the irony!
    In the 31 page report issued against me to join the Indiana bar, which addresses my worldview and religious perspective on governance while containing not one citation to law, not even a recitation of the relevant standards, I was faulted, among other reasons to deny my bid to become licensed (despite having been licensed in Kansas since 96 without discipline) and to order me to not apply again for five years, I was faulted, even verbally reprimanded (by a DC attorney) for being about one month tardy on telling the Bar Examiners that I have been laid off from non legal work. (I actually did not realize I had such a duty, since I was subject to recall.) One month. Yet this is the standard that they keep themselves? So sad for Indiana, so sad for the rule of law. More on my "processing" through this system here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23961843/Brown-v-Bowman-complaint-12-09 and here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109518279/Brownv-ind-S-ct-BoardLawExams Oral argument before the 7th circuit here: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/2011/migrated.orig.11-2164_10_20_2011.mp3
  • Additional Point
    I would add that the fact those bar officials requested anonymity for their criticism of the DC for failing to timely file reports speaks volumes. They are undoubtedly concerned about retaliation for daring to criticize the Commission. But if the DC is not being operated in a political fashion in which critics of the Commission are targeted, then what do these officials have to worry about having their name exposed? Their own conduct undercuts the claim that they and people in their county bar associations believe that the Commission is being run properly.
  • Attorneys View of the DC
    Those bar officials who are quoted saying that attorneys are generally happy with how the Commission has operated are telling huge fibs and I guarantee you they know it. I have been an attorney for 26 years and I have heard a torrent of criticism about how the Commission has operated under Lundberg and Witte. They complain that the DC does not enforce the rules evenly, that political considerations enter the Commission's decision to target certain attorneys, that the DC goes after small firm attorneys and sole practitioners almost exclusively, that the DC operates as a virtual Star Chamber via its use of secrecy. The board of the DC appears to be little more than a rubber stamp for whatever the Executive Secretary wants to do. My time as an attorney has spanned the Lundberg and Witte eras and I have yet to hear one attorney speak positively of how the DC has been operated under them. On the other hand, I have heard positive things about how it ran under Shelden Breskow, Lundberg's predecessor.
  • ?????
    BS

    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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

    2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

    3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

    4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

    5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

    ADVERTISEMENT