ILNews

State Sen. Glick gets probationary deal in attorney discipline case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A northern Indiana state senator who was accused of mishandling 22 estate cases — including several open cases that are decades old — will not be suspended from the practice of law if she abides by conditions imposed by the Indiana Supreme Court, according to an order issued late Thursday.

The disciplinary complaint against Sen. Susan Glick was mitigated by “her making of restitution, her cooperation with the disciplinary process, her remorse, and her recent progress in closing the majority of old estates,” the court said in a unanimous order signed by Chief Justice Loretta Rush. The disciplinary complaint against Glick did not mention any allegations of owed restitution.

Glick, R-LaGrange, is one of seven majority members of the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee. She also serves on the Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee.

The agreement in Glick’s disciplinary case came just one month and one week after the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a formal attorney discipline complaint against her. Glick issued a statement Friday through her attorney, James Bell of Paganelli Law Group in Indianapolis.

“Attorneys strive to adhere to a strict code in the practice of law. I am disappointed that I failed to live up to the high professional standards which I have always tried to maintain in over thirty-nine years of practicing law,” Glick said in the statement. “I have cooperated fully with the Disciplinary Commission to resolve this matter, and I deeply regret the inconvenience to my clients and any embarrassment to my fellow practitioners and the members of the legal profession.”

Bell did not immediately respond to questions regarding the amount and nature of the restitution Glick made, or whether Glick is facing any civil actions arising from the cases she is accused of mishandling.

The court suspended Glick for 30 days, all of which is stayed as long as she completes two years of probation and meets performance benchmarks the court outlined in its order. She must apprise the commission within 90 days of the status of seven old estate cases that remained open at the time the disciplinary complaint was filed against her, and she must close those open estates within the two-year probationary term. Failure to do so will result a 30-day suspension without automatic reinstatement.

Glick is accused of multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in a two-count complaint. In the first count, a co-executor of an estate claims that from September 2013 through February 2014, he made at least 27 attempts to contact Glick by phone or office visits for an update on the estate. The co-executor was typically met by Glick’s response that she “was working on it,” the complaint says, and Glick failed to provide any updates.

It took more than seven years to close that estate after the testator’s death in January 2009. The estate closed in November 2016 — after the commission initially contacted Glick about problems with several of her estate cases. It’s unclear from the complaint when the grievances against Glick were filed with the commission.

The complaint says the estate co-executor had provided Glick checking account information, farm rental information and other documentation on behalf of the estate, but Glick failed to timely file income tax returns or an Indiana inheritance tax return. The complaint says she paid from her own pocket the associated penalties and interest due in those cases.

The commission charges Glick with violating Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence on the estate matter; 1.4(3) for failing to keep co-executors reasonably informed about the status of the case; and 1.4(4) for failing to comply with reasonable requests for information from a co-executor.

Under a separate count, the commission accuses Glick “of failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation” in 21 delinquent estate cases, a violation of Rule 3.2.

The commission says it asked Glick on Oct. 24, 2016, about 21 open estate cases dating from 1991 to 2014 in which she was the attorney of record. “As of the date of this complaint, the Respondent has closed 14 of the 21 estates,” the complaint says. All of the cases are in LaGrange Circuit Court.

The seven remaining open cases listed by the commission — those the court has now ordered her to close within two years — date from 1991 to 2012.

 

 

 

 

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. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT