ILNews

180 lawyers suspended over CLE, fee or IOLTA violations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday suspended 180 lawyers who failed to pay attorney registration fees, meet continuing legal education requirements or submit certification of Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts.

Thursday’s order  listed 108 Indiana attorneys and 72 attorneys with out-of-state addresses. Those attorneys now have a Roll of Attorneys status of “suspension pending,” and the order gives them a little more than a month to correct deficiencies.

“Although the suspension is effective as of the date of this order for purposes of the reinstatement procedures that must be followed and/or any reinstatement fees that must be paid for reinstatement, the Court directs that the proscription against the actual practice of law will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time on Thursday, July, 3, 2013,” the order said.

“The delay from the date of this order to the suspension date is for the sole purpose of allowing time for copies of this order to be sent, received, and acted upon by the suspended attorneys.”

Rules for reinstatement may be viewed online. The reinstatement procedure for payment of attorney fees is found in Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 2(h). The rule for CLE requirement reinstatement is in ADR 29, Section 10(b). IOLTA requirements are found in ADR 2(f).

Far fewer attorneys are covered by Thursday’s blanket order than were last year, when more than 300 attorneys were suspended.


 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT