ILNews

Justices suspend attorney for history of ‘unethical litigation practices’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has handed down a three-year suspension to an Indianapolis attorney whose conduct “far exceeded zealous advocacy and included repeated abuse of the tools of the legal system.”

The justices issued the suspension against Gordon B. Dempsey in a May 2 order, deciding that Dempsey must petition for reinstatement. Justice Steven David voted for disbarment.

The suspension comes after the Supreme Court found Dempsey violated three Indiana Professional Conduct Rules: 3.1: asserting a position for which there is no non-frivolous basis in law or fact; 4.4: using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person; 8.4(g): engaging in conduct that was not legitimate advocacy, in a professional capacity, manifesting bias or prejudice based upon race, religion, and disability (mental condition).

The suspension stems from Dempsey, as a buyer of a multi-unit residential property in 1999, failing to pay on the contract and later initiating appeals in the foreclosure action and in a bankruptcy case involving the purchase of the property. Ten years later, he handed out flyers in Indianapolis calling the unnamed sellers “slumlords,” and made disparaging remarks about the sellers’ attorneys and Jews generally.

“Respondent's history of unethical litigation practices, his continued attacks on those involved in the bankruptcy and foreclosure actions and in this disciplinary proceeding, the virulent bigotry he has manifested in these proceedings, and his lack of any insight into his misconduct suggest that disbarment may be justified. Nevertheless, a majority of this Court has decided not to close the door permanently on the possibility of Respondent's professional rehabilitation. The Court will therefore impose a substantial suspension, after which Respondent may choose to undergo a rigorous reinstatement process to prove his understanding of his ethical duties and remorse before resuming practice,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote in the order.

Although Dempsey has no formal disciplinary history, he has been admonished and sanctioned in other proceedings for misstating facts, ignoring court rulings, committing egregious rule violations and asserting meritless claims, according to the order.

Dempsey was admitted to practice in Indiana in 1974. His suspension takes effect June 12, and the costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT