ILNews

Lawyer resigns over adding fee requirement to plea deal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis attorney who ran for elected office multiple times has resigned from the bar rather than face a disciplinary charge that he added a demand for a fee to a client’s proposed criminal plea agreement.

The Indiana Supreme Court issued an order May 8 accepting the resignation of Todd Woodmansee and concluding his discipline case, 49S00-1305-DI-347. The order says Woodmansee tendered a resignation that requires “acknowledgement that the material facts alleged are true” and that Woodmansee couldn’t successfully defend himself if prosecuted by the Disciplinary Commission.

Woodmansee represented Joshua Griffin, who was charged with Class D felony domestic battery and numerous misdemeanors. Woodmansee agreed to take the case on a $1,000 flat fee according to the verified petition, but upon later learning that Griffin was on probation for an earlier similar conviction, the attorney agreed to represent him on that matter for an additional $750.

Some time later, a deputy prosecutor emailed Woodmansee a proposed plea bargain that included a clause reading, “Defendant agrees guilty plea herein is a violation of defendants’ probation … therefore, probation is hereby revoked under that cause and terminated unsuccessfully, case closed.”

But the petition in Woodmansee’s disciplinary case alleged that he forwarded the agreement to Griffin in an email, adding these words at the end of the clause: “upon defendant paying costs of $750 through his attorney to the probation department.”

“The term of the $750 payment to probation was not in the original plea agreement sent from the prosecutor and was not intended to go toward any probation costs,” the petition reads. “Instead, (Woodmansee) added this term as a pretense to obtain the additional $750 that his client had originally stated he would pay.”

Griffin pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to time served and an additional 319 days of probation.

Woodmansee had filed for the Democratic Party’s nomination for Superior Court judge in last week’s primary, but he withdrew from the race in January. He previously ran for City-County Council in 2011 and Warren Township Small Claims Court judge in 2009, according to the Marion County Clerk’s Office.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT