Prosecutor faces disciplinary charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Delaware County Prosecutor Mark R. McKinney faces disciplinary charges that he violated four professional conduct rules stemming from his role as a private attorney on civil forfeiture matters related to the criminal defendants he handled as a deputy prosecutor on behalf of the state.

The complaint verified May 8 by the Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission, says McKinney's conduct presented a conflict of interest and stood in the way of justice. The allegations say that his profiting in drug forfeiture cases - fee agreements show he was paid 25 percent of the money forfeited by or seized from drug defendants - impeded the state's criminal cases that he was involved in prosecuting.

He is accused of violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.7(b); 1.7(a)(2); 1.8(l); and 8.4(d).

Before becoming prosecutor in January 2007, McKinney was a deputy prosecutor beginning in 1995 and worked with the now-disassembled Muncie-Delaware Drug Task Force (DTF) with which he was personally involved in drug investigations of many of the resulting criminal cases. From 2000 to 2007, he also profited through compensation based on the value of contracts with defendants and attorney fees for his private practice work of suing for the forfeitures of criminal defendants' property, according to the complaint.

"Respondent criminally prosecuted defendants while at the same time (he) pursued civil forfeiture against those criminal defendants' cash and/or property knowing that Respondent would invoice and receive a 25 percent fee on the forfeited amount," the complaint states.

No evidence exists that McKinney ever agreed to offer a plea agreement to lesser charges or that he ever agreed to charge anyone for lesser crimes in exchange for money, the complaint notes.

"There is no evidence of any quid pro quo. Nonetheless, there was a significant risk that the Respondent's representation of the State as Prosecutor or DPA would have been materially limited by his personal financial interest in (confidential settlement agreements) or the outcomes of civil forfeiture actions," the complaint states.

In a news release, McKinney's attorney, Kevin McGoff with Bingham McHale in Indianapolis, said his client has cooperated with the commission on this matter from the start and he's accepted responsibility and agreed to a resolution of the charges. Details of that conditional agreement aren't public, and the Indiana Supreme Court can agree to those terms or issue another penalty as it sees fit, McGoff noted.

This disciplinary case came up after Mayor Sharon McShurley took office in 2008 and filed an initial grievance, following up on years of audits that found assets of civil drug forfeitures were diverted to funds for Muncie police and the former drug task force, instead of local government or state school funds - even as McKinney and other collected legal fees and a percentage of the seizure handling civil forfeiture cases.

A day before this disciplinary commission filing last week, Special Prosecutor Barry Brown from Monroe County cleared McKinney of any criminal wrongdoing in his handling of the drug forfeiture cases.

"There appears to have been a good faith effort by Mark McKinney to comply with the Indiana legislative statutory provisions as well as adhere to the practices and protocols of asset forfeiture as they existed in Delaware County at the time Mark McKinney served as deputy prosecuting attorney and prosecutor," Brown wrote in the order.

Although these were the same actions examined by the Disciplinary Commission, the two inquiries were independent of one another. An investigation of the same subject by Delaware Circuit 2 Judge Richard Dailey earlier this year ended after McKinney filed an appeal and the parties agreed the orders issued requiring him to repay money would be vacated and the matters dismissed.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.