Letters to the Editor
Inbox: Balancing the scales of justice
May 9, 2012
A letter from Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller on his brother, a well-known criminal defense attorney.
MoreEditorial: Letter to the Editor
July 6, 2011
Official would best criticize as private citizen, not public servant.
MoreIn-box: Hat club needs more members
April 27, 2011
A reader responds to a column by Mickey Maurer.
MoreIn-box: Bigotry and prejudice must be fought
April 27, 2011
A letter to the editor on Mickey Maurer's column on diversity.
MoreIn-box: Don't we have more pressing business?
April 27, 2011
A reader writes in about a diversity column by Mickey Maurer.
MoreIn-box: Diversity is of critical importance to state
April 13, 2011
A letter to the editor on a previous column by Mickey Maurer on diversity.
MoreIn-box: 'Keep up the good words'
April 13, 2011
A reader responds to a column by Mickey Maurer on diversity.
MoreIn-box: Focus should not be on 'social issues'
April 13, 2011
A letter to the editor regarding Mickey Maurer's column on diversity.
MoreIn-box: Improving the way courts do business
March 2, 2011
Indiana courts are tackling a giant technology project. It matters because it affects both our efficiency and your ability
to access court information for free. Right now, our state’s 400 trial courts don’t share case information with
each other or with state agencies in the electronic ways that are so common in modern life. There are 21 different computer
systems managing court information in our state. As you can imagine, we believe that is a bad business practice and we’re
working to do better.
MoreIn-box: Marion County slating system works well
December 8, 2010
A reader writes a letter in support of Marion County's hybrid method of selecting trial judges.
MoreIn-box: IBA's move is a step in the right direction
September 15, 2010
Read a letter to the editor from the Indianapolis Bar Association president about the recently formed PAC for judicial campaign
contributions.
MoreCivic education programs prepare students for public life
May 26, 2010
A letter to the editor asks all to support civic programs in Indiana.
MoreLetter to the editor: Distracted driving results in tragedy
April 28, 2010
The other day as I was reading through the March 17-30, 2010 issue of Indiana Lawyer, my attention was called to David Temple's
article "Be smart: Don't use cell phone while driving!"
MoreLetter to editor: Articles attack integrity
April 28, 2010
You can imagine my surprise upon reading articles in the Indiana Lawyer, The Indianapolis Star, and the Indianapolis Business
Journal falsely impugning my integrity and the integrity of our law firm.
MoreProsecutor story was misleading
April 14, 2010
As a longstanding member of the Indianapolis Bar and reader of the Indiana Lawyer, I was surprised and very disappointed to see an article appearing in Indiana Lawyer daily suggesting that a sentence reduction provided to Guilford Forney was based not solely on the merits.
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Court Calendar
-
May 23, 2012 Covered Bridge Homeowners Association vs. Town of Sellersburg, Indiana - 5/23/12
-
June 1, 2012 Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co., et al. v. Michiana Contracting, et al. - 6/1/12
-
June 12, 2012 State of Indiana Military Department, et al. v. Continental Electric Co.
-
June 19, 2012 The City of Indianapolis v. National Trust Insurance Co., et al.
Indiana Lawyer Featured Advertisers
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
G. Michael Witte letter states he's suspended for three years. The case that got him suspended is identical to my estate case, including havin the Late Judge Deiter recuse himself because Newman had a conflict of interest with the judge. His Modus Operandi is nearly identical.
SIGNED BY G. MICHAEL WITTE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DATED MAY 17, 2012.
Your 6th complaint against Lawrence T. Newman filed on 4/12/2012. On 1/31/12, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order suspending Lawrence T. Newman’s law license for a period of three years. More important, even after three years, Lawrence Todd Newman will not get his license back unless and until he goes through a separate proceeding to prove that he is fit to practice law. This is not an easy process, and the burden is upon Lawrence T. Newman to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to return to practice.
Because of the length of Lawrence T. Newman’s license suspension and the fact he may never succeed in getting his law license reinstated, we are not opening an investigation file at this time.
Should Lawrence T. Newman seek reinstatement in the future, we will open your file and ask Lawrence T. Newman to address your grievance as part of his burden of proving fitness. We have attempted to notify Lawrence T. Newman that this will be required of him.
It may disappoint you to hear that we will be doing nothing on your grievance at this time. However, the most our office can ever accomplish is to take away a lawyer’s license to practice law. We have already done that, albeit as a result of misconduct in cases other than your own. It makes better sense for our office to focus its limited resources on cases where the lawyers are still actively practicing law.
Is there any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division? I am the unfortunate victim of a retaliatory lawsuit brought by Lawrence Todd Newman, the attorney from an estate case on which I worked as a unsupervised personal representative in 2006. The contract agreement for that case stated that the estate would be responsible for all attorney fees, but Newman refused to close the nearly insolvent estate when my duties were complete and his fees were paid. Instead, he tried to extort additional attorney fees from me by keeping the case open to address a wrongful death claim, despite the estate’s heir’s lack of interest in pursuing it and an expert doctor’s opinion that it would not be worth doing so. He also knowingly deceived me into believing that a “closing statement” was needed to close the estate, even though this requirement had actually been waived by the estate’s heir. The heir’s attorney filed a motion to have Newman removed from the case. After the court closed the probate case with prejudice (barred from further litigation) Newman illegally re-opened the case in another courtroom.
As a result of complaints filed against him for these and similar actions, Newman has been suspended from practicing law for 18 months by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. In retaliation, he has filed suit against me demanding additional attorney fees for the 2006 estate case, despite the fact that I made no agreement stating that I would pay any fees from my own assets on behalf of the estate. This lawsuit violates the rules of ethics, due process of law, and equal protection of law. Newman has been allowed to file ridiculous pleadings at an alarming rate and has been supported by a biased court system. Judge Carroll refuses to recuse himself from the case despite the fact that, by his own admission, he intends to grant Newman sanctions regardless of the evidence. When my former counsel discovered that the previous judge on the case, Judge Sosin, was a long-time close friend of Newman’s family, Judge Carroll commented for the record during a hearing that Judge Sosin in so many words “he finds the door “was weak for recusing himself from the case as a result of this obvious conflict of interest.
This case is a public policy issue. Statutes put in place to protect unsupervised personal representatives in probate matters are being ignored. This case will affect thousands of individuals involved in probating and the personal representation of estates. Justice cannot possibly be served as long as a biased judge is allowed to defend a “vexatious litigant,” as Newman has been described by Judge Logan in Bradenton, Florida court. If there is any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division, this case against me will be dismissed with prejudice.
Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.
This was an unnecessary change in law, a needless fiddling with a tax that impacted very very few hoosiers, but one that erodes a tax base benefitting very many hoosiers. Just because some people wanted to chalk up a "tax cut" on their legislative brag-list, and didnt give a fig about replacing the revenue any other way. Really stupid. I am a republican my whole life and this just shames me like hell. I have to use a fake name over this because I know my fellow republicans are all brain washed over tax cutting too.