ILNews

State seeks further discipline against suspended lawyer Paul Page

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission has filed a complaint against suspended Indianapolis attorney and developer Paul Page that could result in further sanctions against his law license.

Paul Page pleaded guilty in January 2013 to a single federal felony wire fraud charge and was sentenced to two years probation and a $10,000 fine in November. His license to practice law was suspended afterward.

Page was charged in a 14-count indictment in which two co-defendants later were found not guilty in a jury trial in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The charges related to a real estate deal involving an Elkhart office building leased to the state. The verdict helped unravel a related public corruption investigation targeting former Marion County prosecutor Carl Brizzi.

The complaint filed this week by the disciplinary commission says Page’s conviction is a violation of Admission and Discipline Rule 8.4(b), committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness, and Rule 8.4(c), engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.   
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Represented by a Dirty Lawyer.
    What is to happen to the possibly hundreds of defendants that were represented by Paul Page when he himself was engaging in illegal activities? I was represented by Paul Page and I am looking to clear my record. He made me feel like what I had in front of me as a plea was my only option.

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. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT