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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT