Misconduct complaint on AG ad

October 31, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
With all the political ads showing on TV right now, it’s easy for us to tune them out. But one recent ad from the camp of Republican candidate for Attorney General Greg Zoeller has upset one Indianapolis criminal defense attorney so much that he’s reporting the ad to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.

Attorney Bob Hammerle recently sent Indiana Lawyer a letter to the editor about the ad that attacks Democratic AG nominee Linda Pence for her past service as a criminal defense attorney. For those who haven’t seen the ad, or perhaps tuned it out, the language in the ad seems to try to impact negatively upon Pence’s character because she’s represented criminals. I couldn’t find the ad online, either on Zoeller’s Web site or on YouTube.

We received the letter after our deadline for the issue prior to the election, but we decided to publish excerpts here because Hammerle brings up some interesting points:

“… To listen to Mr. Zoeller’s pernicious ads, one would conclude that there is something dishonorable in representing a person accused of a criminal act. Even worse, Mr. Zoeller blatantly suggests that a criminal defense lawyer is somehow personally tainted by the accusations made against his or her client. That is as absurd as it is preposterous, and again I am certain that Mr. Zoeller fully knows it,” wrote Hammerle.

“…Years ago when I began my own practice as a criminal defense attorney, the late Judge Andrew Jacobs Sr. hired me as a public defender. In doing so, he told me that despite the fact that I will frequently be meeting human beings who have done contemptible things, that I was to represent each one as if they were my best paying client. He reminded me that in doing so, everyone’s right to liberty is enhanced.”

“…In pandering to public misperceptions about his own profession, Mr. Zoeller unintentionally calls into question his own competence to serve as the leading lawyer of this State.”

Speaking with Hammerle this afternoon about the ad, he said he’s brought the ad to the attention of the Disciplinary Commission, citing Rules 8.3(a) and 8.4(d) of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. Hammerle said he’s upset that an ad endorsing one attorney – especially if the ad was approved by Zoeller – would openly denigrate another attorney. He said it’s not about political parties but disrespect from one attorney toward another.

Hammerle’s letter hits on an important point that the general public may not consider when it comes to accused criminals – they have the right to an attorney, whether they can pay for it themselves or tax dollars have to be used for public defenders. The ad endorsing Zoeller makes it seem like Pence, or criminal defense attorneys in general, are just as bad as the people they are defending. Being a criminal defense attorney may not be the most revered or positively viewed profession by the general public, but it’s a needed one.
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
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT