ILNews

Justices suspend Logansport lawyer for 1 year

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court suspended a Logansport attorney for one year because he routinely allowed his secretary to prepare and sign his name on bankruptcy petitions and other court documents, including one petition that she mistakenly filed in the wrong District.

An order published Nov. 10 split the court on the disciplinary action against Cass County attorney James E. Chovanec, who has been practicing law since 1975.

Chovanec, who represented debtors in bankruptcy matters, had his secretary sign his name despite Bankruptcy Rule 9011(a) and (b) that requires an attorney of record to sign most court documents and to make certain certifications about the fillings. At one point, his secretary filed a petition in the Northern District of Indiana rather than the Southern District, and she then signed and filed a motion to dismiss. The bankruptcy judge set a motion hearing to consider the dismissal, but Chovanec failed to appear at that proceeding or two subsequent hearings to show cause why he shouldn’t be held in contempt.

In September 2005, the judge found Chovanec in contempt and fined him $1,000, prohibiting him from filing any more bankruptcies in the Northern District until he petitioned for restatement before the chief judge. The following day, Chovanec filed 10 more bankruptcy petitions in that District and the judge issued another show cause hearing. Chovanec obtained limited reinstatement prior to the scheduled hearing, but the lawyer failed to appear and the bankruptcy judge again found Chovanec in contempt and prohibited him from representing anyone in the Northern District until he paid a $500 fine and successfully petitioned for reinstatement.

The disciplinary action results from violation of four Indiana Professional Conduct Rules: 3.3(a) knowingly making false statements to a tribunal; 3.4(c) knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal; 5.3(b) failure to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of a nonlawyer employee over whom the lawyer has direct supervisory authority is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and 5.3(c) ordering or ratifying the misconduct of nonlawyer assistants or failing to take reasonable remedial action with respect to the misconduct of nonlawyer assistants under the lawyer's supervision.

Both sides reached a conditional agreement for discipline, finding that Chovanec cooperated with the disciplinary process and that this case was “precipitated primarily by Respondent’s lack of training and supervision of his staff rather than an intentional plan to deceive the court.” But in aggravation, the parties looked to Chovanec’s past two disciplinary matters from 1994 and 1998, when he received a 30-day suspension and 12-month suspension respectively.

A three-justice majority determined the appropriate sanction in this action is a one-year suspension without automatic reinstatement, beginning Dec. 16, 2011.

Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker agreed with the 12-month suspension, while Justice Frank Sullivan wrote that he concurred only because of the conditional agreement. If not for that submitted disciplinary action, he would have voted for more severe sanction. Chief Justice Randall Shepard and Justice Steven David dissented, writing that they believe the agreed discipline is insufficient for the misconduct admitted.

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