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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT