Discipline

State representative's attacker permanently disbarred

January 13, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Indianapolis attorney who violently attacked and attempted to kill a state representative has been permanently disbarred by the Indiana Supreme Court.
More

COA upholds attorney's 11-year sentence

January 11, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Roanoke attorney who stole more than $200,000 from his clients will not have his sentence reduced, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Wednesday.
More

Disciplinary Actions -1/6/12

January 4, 2012
IL Staff
Read who's been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana.
More

Justices suspend attorney for 18 months

December 21, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
Three Indiana justices decided that an attorney deserved an 18-month suspension for violating four rules of Professional Conduct, including charging an unreasonable fee. Justice Steven David didn’t participate in the case and Justice Robert Rucker believed the attorney only violated three of the rules and deserved a shorter suspension.
More

Holiday gifts raise ethical concerns

December 21, 2011
Michael Hoskins
Revised attorney advertising rules broaden the scope of referral regulation.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 12/21/11

December 21, 2011
Read who's been suspended from the practice of law.
More

Traffic judge's 60-day suspension begins next week

December 20, 2011
Michael Hoskins
Hammond City Court Judge Jeffrey A. Harkin will begin serving his 60-day unpaid suspension on Dec. 27 as a result of an agreement he reached with the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications and approved by the state’s highest court.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 12/7/11

December 7, 2011
IL Staff
Read who's been suspended and who receive a public reprimand by the Indiana Supreme Court.
More

Appellate court rules in judge's favor

December 6, 2011
Michael Hoskins
Trial courts don’t have the authority to issue orders against other courts and judges mandating that they stop certain practices, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.
More

Marion County judge admonished for fundraising flyer

November 29, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has admonished a Marion Superior judge for mailing a questionable re-election fundraising flyer that it says put the judiciary in a negative light and implied that justice is for sale.
More

Disciplinary actions 11/23/11

November 23, 2011
IL Staff
Read the latest disciplinary actions issued by the Indiana Supreme Court.
More

Hammond City judge gets 60-day unpaid suspension

November 17, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court has ordered that Hammond City Court Judge Jeffrey A. Harkin be suspended for 60 days without pay.
More

Justices suspend Logansport lawyer for 1 year

November 15, 2011
Michael Hoskins
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.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 11/9/11

November 9, 2011
IL Staff
Read who's been suspended and who's had their suspensions terminated.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 10/12/11

October 12, 2011
IL Staff
Read who's been suspended or resigned.
More

Commission urges discipline for former Marion County prosecutor

September 30, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Commission wants the state's highest court to find former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi committed misconduct when he made statements about two high-profile cases he handled as prosecutor.
More

Justices suspend attorney for collecting 'exploitive fee'

September 29, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court has suspended an Indianapolis attorney after finding he engaged in attorney misconduct by collecting a “clearly unreasonable and exploitive fee” from a vulnerable client.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 9/28/11

September 28, 2011
IL Staff
Read who's been suspended or received a public reprimand.
More

Criminal defense attorney receives public reprimand for fee agreement changes

September 15, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court has publicly reprimanded an Indianapolis criminal defense attorney, finding that he modified an agreement and charged an unreasonable fee without first obtaining written consent and giving his client a chance to get another lawyer’s opinion.
More

Special masters named in judge's disciplinary case

September 14, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court has appointed three trial judges as special masters to preside over the disciplinary case of one of their city court colleagues from Lake County, who is accused of operating an illegal traffic school, dismissing cases without assessing required fees, and dissuading one litigant from contesting a seatbelt violation in court.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 9/14/11

September 14, 2011
IL Staff
See who's been suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court.
More

Judges uphold contempt order against attorney

September 6, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
A Morgan Circuit judge had jurisdiction to order a Unionville attorney to pay $75,000 to the county clerk after finding the attorney in contempt, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
More

Can schools discipline for off-campus conduct?

August 31, 2011
Michael Hoskins
School is back in session, and a new set of court rulings issued during the summer break may make it more difficult for school administrators to decide how to handle inappropriate or potentially disruptive online activities carried out by students off-campus.
More

Rehearing: Traffic judge denies misconduct

August 31, 2011
Michael Hoskins
Hammond City Judge Jeffrey A. Harkin denies that he did anything wrong in operating what may be a long-established but illegal traffic school deferral program and dismissing cases without assessing required fees. He also contends that he did not try to dissuade one litigant from contesting a seatbelt violation in court.
More

IL: Disciplinary Actions

August 31, 2011
IL Staff
Read about disciplinary actions issued by the Indiana Supreme Court in recent weeks.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> 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'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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT