ILNews

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.

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
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