ILNews

Indianapolis attorney resigns from bar

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted the resignation of the Indianapolis attorney who pleaded guilty earlier this year to theft from two clients.

Stacy H. Sheedy’s resignation became effective July 17, according to an order released by the justices.

Sheedy was charged with theft and forgery in January after an investigation revealed she misappropriated nearly $600,000 in funds from a guardianship account and a family trust account. She pleaded guilty to two Class C felony counts of theft and was sentenced to eight years in prison.

Sheedy was admitted to practice in 1996 and suspended in June 2011 for failing to cooperate with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against her. She was reinstated on July 26, 2011.

As a result of her resignation, any pending disciplinary action against her has been dismissed. She can’t practice in Indiana for five years.

Sheedy is the second attorney in the last month to resign from the bar. William Conour tendered his resignation at the end of June. He faces a wire fraud charge in federal court in the Southern District of Indiana. He’s accused of misappropriating more than $2.5 million from clients over the course of nearly 12 years.

 

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

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT