Disciplinary Commission

Former Marion County spokesperson given public reprimand

May 18, 2011
IL Staff
Marietto “Mario” V. Massillamany, an attorney and former spokesperson for then-Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, has been publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court for driving drunk.
More

Disciplinary charges filed against Hamilton County judge

May 13, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has filed disciplinary charges against Hamilton Superior Judge William Hughes. The charges are related to the judge’s arrest for driving while impaired and later guilty plea to misdemeanor reckless driving in North Carolina.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 4/27/11

April 27, 2011
See who resigned and who was reinstated.
More

Suspended attorney pleads guilty to theft

April 13, 2011
Michael Hoskins
A suspended attorney has pleaded guilty to stealing $283,000 from his clients during dozens of transactions.
More

New advertising rules irk some lawyers

April 13, 2011
Michael Hoskins
Bloomington attorney Ken Nunn says he hasn’t been hurt by new attorney advertising rules put in place at the start of the year, but he’s hearing more disturbing stories from people who are feeling the effects.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 4/13/11

April 13, 2011
See who was suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 3/30/11

March 30, 2011
See who's been suspended or received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court.
More

Disciplinary Actions - March 16, 2011

March 16, 2011
IL Staff
Read about recent disciplinary actions ordered by the Indiana Supreme Court.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 3/2/11

March 2, 2011
See who has been suspended, received a public reprimand, and who resigned.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 2/16/11

February 16, 2011
See who was recently suspended.
More

Attorney reprimanded for charging unreasonable fees

February 14, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court has publicly reprimanded a Hamilton County attorney for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(a) by making agreements for and charging unreasonable fees.
More

Lawyer suspended for 180 days due to conduct during disciplinary process

February 11, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court has ordered a six month suspension for an Indiana lawyer who primarily practices in Michigan, not because of the misconduct committed, but more specifically because of the attorney’s bad behavior during the disciplinary process.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 2/2/11

February 2, 2011
See who's been suspended and reinstated.
More

Ex-Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi defends himself in court

January 19, 2011
Michael Hoskins
While the ex-prosecutor in the state’s largest county waits to hear whether he will get a black mark for misconduct on his record, the Marion County disciplinary action against Carl Brizzi has broader professional conduct implications for attorneys throughout Indiana.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 1/19/11

January 19, 2011
See who's been suspended by the Disciplinary Commission.
More

Brizzi disciplinary case poses 'actual prejudice' question

January 7, 2011
Michael Hoskins
Former Marion County prosecutor Carl Brizzi took the stand today, defending himself against attorney misconduct charges alleging that he violated professional conduct rules by public statements made on pending cases.
More

Offensive language results in disciplinary actions

January 5, 2011
Rebecca Berfanger
Complaints based on a misconduct rule regarding how an attorney could offend others through prejudicial words or actions resulted in disciplinary orders in May and December 2010.
More

Disciplinary Actions -1/5/11

January 5, 2011
See who's been suspended or publicly reprimanded.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 12/22/10

December 22, 2010
See who's resigned and been reinstated.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 12/8/10

December 8, 2010
Read who's been suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 11/24/10

November 24, 2010
See who's been disbarred, suspended, or resigned.
More

Justices disbar attorney

November 12, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court chose to disbar a Marion County attorney due to his pattern of neglect in clients’ cases.
More

New advertising rule on law firm monikers sparks concern

November 10, 2010
Michael Hoskins
New attorney advertising rules adopted recently by the Indiana Supreme Court have some lawyers throughout the state worried that they’re being forced to change their law firm names from what’s historically been allowed.
More

Brizzi disciplinary case delayed again

November 10, 2010
Michael Hoskins
By the time Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi faces a disciplinary hearing on alleged misconduct about how he publicly discussed pending cases, he’ll have finished his term and will no longer be prosecutor in the state’s largest county.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 11/10/10

November 10, 2010
See who's been suspended and reinstated.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >> 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