ILNews

Monroe County attorney suspended following guilty plea

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorney Phillip Chamberlain, who pleaded guilty to Class D felony counterfeiting in October 2012, has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana.

The Indiana Supreme Court ordered the interim suspension, issued on June 11, 2013, because Chamberlain was found guilty of a crime punishable as a felony. The suspension will continue until further order of the court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect.

After the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23 (11.1)(a), filed a “Notice of Guilty Finding and Request for Suspension,” Chamberlain requested and was granted an extension of time to May 15, 2013, to file a response. However, the deadline passed without him filing any submission.

Chamberlain has been ordered to fulfill the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).

The Clear Creek attorney was arrested in 2008 and faced charges of Class C felonies fraudulent sale of securities, forgery, sale of unregistered securities and unregistered investment advisor. These charges were dismissed after he entered an agreement to plead guilty to the Class D felony.

He was sentenced to 540 days in the Indiana Department of Correction with all but time served suspended, completion of 120 days of community service and ordered to pay $166 in court costs.

 

 

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