ILNews

Lawyer who emailed nude film clip to harm ex-intern suspended 3 years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis attorney Arthur J. Usher IV’s rejected romantic advances toward a summer intern led him to have his paralegal email more than 50 attorneys a video clip purporting to depict the former intern nude in a film, according to the Indiana Supreme Court. Usher’s bid to discredit and humiliate her while she was seeking employment resulted in a three-year suspension on Friday.

Usher, who met Jane Doe in 2006 while he was a partner at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, had moved to Krieg DeVault LLC when the former intern began seeking employment at Bose and elsewhere, according to the 14-page per curiam Supreme Court disciplinary order, In the Matter of Arthur J. Usher, IV, 49S00-1105-DI-298.

“Although (Usher) expressed an interest in having a romantic relationship with Jane Doe, she consistently declined, telling him she wished to remain only friends,” the order said. “In 2008, their relationship began to deteriorate due primarily to (Usher’s) continued pursuit of a romantic relationship.

“In July of 2008, (Usher) asked the producer of a horror movie in which Jane Doe had appeared to help him obtain a clip from another movie in which Jane Doe also appeared. The producer sent (Usher) a clip from that movie that appeared to show Jane Doe in a state of undress,” according to the opinion. “After (Usher) advised Jane Doe of his meeting with the producer, Jane Doe decided to end their friendship. (Usher) then began attempting to humiliate Jane Doe and to interfere with her employment prospects.”

After the former intern accepted a job offer at Bose, Usher provided the film clip to a Bose attorney and “attempted to convince the attorney that Jane Doe’s appearance in a horror film in a state of undress would have an adverse effect on the ability of Bose to retain and/or attract clients. Suspicious of (Usher’s) motives, the attorney did not take (Usher’s) suggestion to send the clip to the firm’s executive committee. Jane Doe commenced her employment with Bose despite (Usher’s) efforts to interfere.”

Usher then had his paralegal go to Kinko’s, establish an email address based on a Bose attorney’s name, and send an email containing the film clip to at least 51 attorneys, many of them at Bose, but others also at Barnes & Thornburg, Baker & Daniels, Locke Reynolds, Ice Miller and Krieg DeVault, the court notes.

According to the order, the email subject line was, “Firm slogan becomes ‘Bose means Snuff Porn Film Business’ w/addition of (Jane Doe).” The email contained contrived dialogue “intended to appear to be an exchange of opinions among lawyers and other fictitious persons,” according to the order.

Usher did this even though he knew Doe hadn’t taken off her clothes for the scene, the court said. “Jane Doe takes pride in her acting and does not hide the fact that she has appeared in a number of films. In a scene in the clip, Jane Doe’s character undresses, but a body-double was used in the part showing nudity. (Usher) was aware of this fact but did not disclose this in the email, leaving the impression that Jane Doe appeared topless in the movie.

“The hearing officer rejected (Usher’s) assertion that the email was a prank or humorous. Rather, it was a mean-spirited and vindictive attempt to embarrass and harm Jane Doe, both personally and professionally,” the court said.

When Kreig DeVault was presented with a protective order that Doe had obtained against Usher, the firm demanded his resignation, according to the order. The court in a footnote acknowledges Doe filed a civil action against Usher that he said was settled “‘amicably’ on the eve of trial with his payment of an undisclosed amount to Jane Doe.”

While four of the justices agreed on a three-year suspension without automatic reinstatement, Justice Stephen David dissented and would have disbarred Usher. The court said Usher “has shown no substantial remorse or insight into his misconduct. It is this lack of insight that leads us to believe that a substantial sanction is necessary.”

Usher, who had been a sole practitioner after he was forced to leave Kreig DeVault, was found to have violated the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d), “by, among other things, engaging in a pervasive pattern of conduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation that was prejudicial to the administration of justice,” the court said.




 

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT