ILNews

‘Illegal alien’ remark leads to attorney’s suspension; case involves embattled judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Representing a father in a child visitation dispute, a Martinsville lawyer’s letter to opposing counsel alleging the mother was an illegal alien resulted in a 30-day suspension.

The judge who served as the Disciplinary Commission’s hearing officer in attorney Joseph B. Barker’s case separately is facing a suspension request for charges alleging she, too, made unprofessional remarks, among other things. One of the 45 counts against that judge concerns a charge that was she almost a year late with findings in this disciplinary case.

The Indiana Supreme Court on Friday posted an order suspending Barker for 30 days. According to the order, Barker sent the attorney and presiding judge in a divorce case a letter in 2009 that read:

“[Father] told me this week that he has only seen his baby … one day all year. Your client doesn't understand what laws and court orders mean I guess. Probably because she's an illegal alien to begin with.

“I want you to repeat to her in whatever language she understands that we'll be demanding she be put in JAIL for contempt of court.

“I'm filing a copy of this letter with the Court to document the seriousness of this problem.”

Barker violated Rules of Professional Conduct 4.4(a) and 8.4(g), the court ruled.

“Respondent argues that it was legitimate advocacy to connect Mother’s alleged violation of immigration laws with her violation of Father’s court-ordered visitation rights. However, regardless of the frustration Respondent might have felt in the circumstances, we conclude that accusing Mother of being in the country illegally is not legitimate advocacy concerning the legal matter at issue and served no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden Mother,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote for the court.

The order cited Barker’s lack of disciplinary history as a mitigating factor, but “the Respondent’s misconduct is aggravated by the fact that he has no insight into his misconduct, he has not apologized to Mother, and he has substantial experience in the practice of law. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that a period of suspension is required.”

Barker’s suspension is effective Oct. 14, and he will be automatically reinstated. Costs of the proceeding are assessed to him.

The verified complaint against Barker was filed in August 2009, and Marion Superior Judge Kimberly Brown was appointed hearing officer a month later. Brown’s findings and recommendations were filed in June of this year.

Brown is the subject of a 45-count complaint from the Judicial Qualifications Commission replete with allegations of conduct that she treated public defenders, clerks’ office staff and some private attorneys in “a rude and discourteous manner and created “a hostile environment for attorneys, court staff, clerks, and other court officials.” Among the most serious charges facing Brown are accusations she wrongly jailed at least nine defendants for 1 to 22 days, among other things.

But one of the counts concerns Barker’s case, noting that disciplinary counsel asked Brown in December 2012 when findings might be submitted to the court. Barker’s hearing had taken place more than seven months earlier.

“On April 3, 2013, another attorney employed with the Disciplinary Commission requested a status conference on the matter, which (Brown) never attended,” according to the charges against her.

An attorney discipline hearing officer is required by rule to file a report with findings and conclusions within 30 days of the conclusion of the hearing, according to the charges against Brown. She “did not issue findings until June 7, 2013, more than thirteen (13) months after the hearing was conducted,” the charges say.





 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • yes other states do this too
    yes bryan this is a trend in law. and not only Indiana case, but as the issue of this not being in the course of representation, also look at in matter of Kelley 925 ne2d 1279 about calling somebody gay. OOPS I called somebody gay (which supposedly is not even pejorative anymore) now I may get a reprimand. Another case of excessive rule overreach. I hvent read in matter of thomsen, 837- 1011, but that's about racial bias supposedly. Also there is a Pennsylvania case where a pigeon shooter called a woman animal rights advocate a vulgar name and supposedly that was a basis for 8.4 spanking too. IMPURE THOUGHTS BRYAN! here is a LTE I found online following an editorial about this case. the LTE presents the feminist "POV." http://www.sharkonline.org/index.php/pigeon-shoots/53-pennsylvania/445-lawyer-s-vulgar-slur-towards-women-is-unworthy-of-the-profession
  • John, you meant this case
    In re Campiti , 937 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. 2009) (Lawyer was given a public reprimand for violation of Rule 8.4(g) [national origin and socioeconomic status] after making repeated disparaging remarks that a mother was not a U.S. citizen and was receiving legal services at no charge.)
  • Only in Indiana?
    Where else but Indiana could a private letter between attorneys using that term cause an attorney (not large law firm connected, I would bet) to be benched, the goal no income, for a month? Anyone know of any other state that treats its "officers of the court" in such a manner?
  • incomprehensible
    Maybe its just me but how is this not legit advocacy. Illegal aliens are in a state of perpetual lawbreaking by their presence here. They can be deported. Both their lawbreaking and their risk of deportation have profound effects on personal choices. I hear laments about this all the time on NPR about how much they suffer because of our horrible evil "laws." And yet lawyers are not supposed to take notice of the real impact of this lawbreaker status for their clients best interests? That's not "legit advocacy" even though it's relevant to all the core legal issues a family lawyer has to often handle, and a major factor in all choices that a parent is making? On the one hand we are supposed to be compassionate to illegal aliens and be mindful of their quandry, and then on the other hand we are supposed to ignore their quandary when it is a factor in other lawbreaking behavior. We are supposed to ignore matters of LAW which are obviously relevant and germane even though we are LAWYERS and it is in our clients' interests, because why? Because the CAPOS SAY SO THATS WHY. Because they don't like certain laws, that's why. They think the poor unwashed masses of anti-immigration protesters and congressman are bigots, and they're above it, and they have the power to dictate lawyer speech so they are going to dictate it and use the sledgehammer of 8.4 to scare people. Wow. PS good reporting about the nexus to the Baker problem. PPS Gee this is the kind of thing that gets attention when a crook like Conour gets the kid glove treatment. Wow wow wow.
  • dangerous trend
    it seems that some of our speech-cops in black no longer think they have any difficulties in determining what is "legitimate advocacy" I read a fair discussion in don lundberg's discussion in res gestae june 2010 about this trend. he weighs the impelmentation of the rule which goes back to 2002. Unfortunately he concludes the article with approval of the overbroad use of 8.4g by comparing it to "disapproval by professional peers." Well guess what, the Supremes are not our peers they are ABOVE us. They are the third branch of Indiana government taking our license away because they didn't like the CONTENT of our speech. A lot of good the private citizens who are non-lawyers will have trying to protect their free speech rights in court, if all the lawyers are already castrated from dissent ab-initio. btw in re campiti is 905 ne2d 408 (2009) some of you complacent lawyers out there who never beefed about this or said a word to anybody before, ought to wake up because sooner or later it will be your ox that gets gored.
  • so much for free speech.
    Its another blatant overuse of 8.4 which is wide enough to drive a truck through it. What's next, suspensions for lawyers who fail to use "gender-neutral" English? Preposterous. But-- I'll keep my comments anonymous, since I know that they speech-commissars will come with punishment for me too if they know that I've criticized them. So much for that crazy first amendment thingee! The justices and the phony free speech advocates don't give a damn about free speech unless it's speech they like. Might as well go back to being part of the United Kingdom. Better ruled by tyrants farther away then ones in our backyards.
  • wrong again
    Same result as Campiti. Which was wrong then and wrong now. It is definitely legitimate advocacy in a divorce dispute if one of the parties is an illegal alien. Its totally relevant and touches about every single issue one could imagine from child support to custody to spousal maintenance. This result is naked political correctness and the Emperor has no clothes. The courts are making a laughingstock out of themselves with this. I can hardly believe these Justices who have made so many fine decisions have gone agley on this one.

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT