ILNews

Justices disbar attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court chose to disbar a Marion County attorney due to his pattern of neglect in clients’ cases.

In a per curiam opinion handed down today, In the Matter of William J. Rawls, No. 49S00-0908-DI-355, the justices found William J. Rawls violated numerous Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, including 1.3, failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; and 8.4(b), committing a criminal act (forgery) that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

Rawls’ disbarment pertains to six instances involving separate clients. He often lied to clients, failed to return money, and failed to file appearances on behalf of his clients. In one case, Rawls forged his client’s signature on a purported refund receipt.

Rawls, who was admitted in 1985, has a history of discipline, including a prior suspension for misconduct in 2002. His other disciplinary actions involved CLE noncompliance, dues nonpayment, and noncooperation with the Disciplinary Commission.

“Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of neglect of his clients' cases, resulting in adverse dispositions, suspension of one client's driver's license, a missed opportunity to settle, and undue delay,” the opinion states. “Respondent made a series of intentional misrepresentations to the Commission during its investigations of grievances. Respondent created a fraudulent receipt, criminally forged a client's name on it, and submitted it to the Commission, acting as an agency of this Court, with the intent of deceiving the Commission. We therefore conclude that Respondent should be disbarred.”

His disbarment is effective Dec. 27.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Long time coming
    I knew this attorney from way back when he was teaching school in the Perry Twshp School systems in Indianapolis. I first used his services right after my father died in 1997 as he was a very good friend of my father's. I thought I could trust him. In the beginning, all was good, but after about 3 months, I would call to follow up on issues pertaining to my brother who was estranged from the family, Mr. Rawls did not bother to call back or have his staff call me back. For almost two years my father's situation was left in probate. I had to hire another attorney (my mom's attorney) to fix all of the errors and undoings while my mother was then dying of pancreatic cancer. By this time I was so furious with my deceased father for leaving no will and using an inept attorney (because he was my dad's attorney and friend) that I wanted to dig him up out of his grave and kill him myself for leaving me with this nightmare (LOL)...only to wind up lassoing my mom's attorney to fix Mr. Rawls' mess. If I had known then what I know now, I would have started proceedings about this back then. I didn't. I had a colicky new baby born 2 weeks after my father passed and it was just too much to handle. Also, because he was my dad's friend, I thought maybe he was going through some personal issues at the time. Now, I know....not only did he mess me up, his negligence messed up many others as well. I am indeed sorry for that.
  • better decision
    I think this is a good decision and a better use of the disciplinary commission's time than policing whether or not a lawyer can call someone sweet or not.
  • One down, many more to go
    Its about time, but why is he disbarred beginning Dec. 27th? In the mean time, I guess one lawyer to another, they are making sure he can reap all he can in the next 6 weeks. They are all alike. Best legal system money can buy. I guess that is why he stopped doing things for those clients, they must have had shallow pockets.

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. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  2. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  3. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  4. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  5. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

ADVERTISEMENT