Disciplinary Actions

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

Disciplinary Actions - 11/10/10

November 10, 2010
See who's been suspended and reinstated.
More

Disciplinary Actions -10/13/10

October 13, 2010
IL Staff
Read who's been suspended or publicly reprimanded.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 9/29/10

September 29, 2010
IL Staff
See who received a public reprimand.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 9/15/10

September 15, 2010
IL Staff
Read who's been suspended and reinstated to the practice of law.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 9/1

September 1, 2010
Read more about a private reprimand.
More

Disciplinary Actions - 8/18

August 18, 2010
Read who's been suspended from the practice of law.
More

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'

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A top executive of Celadon Group Inc. can no longer represent himself as the Indianapolis-based trucking company's attorney because of a glaring omission - he is not licensed to practice law in Indiana.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