ILNews

Opinions July 2, 2014

July 2, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of: Steve L. Brejensky
29S00-1205-DI-277
Discipline. Imposes at least one-year suspension without automatic reinstatement based on Brejensky’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor conversion and lack of remorse. He may be reinstated only after proving his remorse, rehabilitation and fitness to practice law. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

In the Matter of: Patrick H. Stern
49S00-1205-DI-255
Discipline. Suspends Stern for at least 18-months without automatic reinstatement  for  failing to provide competent representation, representing clients with conflicting interests, asserting frivolous legal positions and engaging in deceptive practices with a court and the Disciplinary Commission.  Requires Stern to undergo a reinstatement proceeding before resuming practice. Justice David dissents regarding the discipline imposed, believing it is insufficient.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Somerville Auto Transport Service, Inc. and Robert Souza v. Automotive Finance Corporation
49A02-1307-CC-559
Civil collection.  Affirms orders placing the cause of action on the active docket and granting summary judgment in favor of Automotive Finance Corp against Somerville and Souza on an outstanding loan owed to AFC.  Finds trial court could place case back on docket  based on T.R. 60(A) after it had previously dismissed it with prejudiced, and finds that AFC provided sufficient evidence to show it reasonably believed Robson Merenciano was an agent of the dealership for purpose of purchasing vehicles using Somerville’s line of credit.

Charlotte Wiggins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1311-CR-972
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Robin Shannon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1010
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

David Wickizer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1310-CR-518
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT