Disciplinary Actions

Disciplinary Actions - 7/21

July 21, 2010
Disciplinary actions from July 21-Aug. 3, 2010, issue.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 7/7

July 7, 2010
Disciplinary actions for July 7, 2010.
More

Disciplinary actions - 6/23

June 23, 2010
IL Staff
Disciplinary actions for June 23, 2010.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 6/9

June 9, 2010
IL Staff
Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission actions from the June 9 Indiana Lawyer.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 5/26

May 26, 2010
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission brings charges against attorneys who have violated the state’s rules for admission to the bar and Rules of Professional Conduct.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 5/12

May 12, 2010
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission brings charges against attorneys who have violated the state's rules for admission to the bar and Rules of Professional Conduct.
More

Supreme Court disbars attorney

April 14, 2010
The Indiana Supreme Court disbarred a northern Indiana attorney April 1 for violating the terms of a previous suspension, entering into an improper business transaction with a client, and engaging in dishonest conduct.
More

Court issues UPL ruling about 'general counsel'Restricted Content

March 31, 2010
Scott Olson
A top executive of Celadon Group Inc. can no longer represent himself as the Indianapolis-based trucking company's attorney because of a glaring omission - he is not licensed to practice law in Indiana.
More

2 attorneys suspended over real estate deal

December 11, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
Two attorneys have been suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court for their representation of a client in a real estate contract in which one of the attorneys had a financial interest.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 pager
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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT