State senator faces attorney discipline over handling of estates

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A northern Indiana state senator faces a formal attorney discipline complaint that alleges she mishandled an estate she represented. The complaint also seeks discipline for 21 other delinquent estates in which she was attorney of record, some dating back decades.

Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, is accused of multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for her representation of a client in an estate case that took more than seven years to close after the testator’s death in January 2009. The estate closed in November 2016.

Glick Glick

A co-executor of that 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, according to the complaint filed earlier this month by the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. 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’s unclear from the complaint when the grievances against Glick were filed with the commission.

The complaint says the estate co-executor provided 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 date from 1991 to 2012.

Glick is represented in her disciplinary case by James Bell of Paganelli Law Group LLC in Indianapolis.

"We are cooperating with the Disciplinary Commission and working towards a resolution of this matter," Bell said in an email.

Glick did not immediately respond Wednesday to a message seeking comment.

Glick, assistant president pro tem of the Senate, was elected from northeastern Indiana’s rural District 13 in 2010. She serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, chairs the Natural Resources Committee, and is the ranking member on the Corrections and Criminal Law and Agriculture committees.

Glick was LaGrange County prosecutor from 1983-1990, according to her state Senate profile. She serves as town counsel for the LaGrange County communities of Shipshewana and Topeka. A graduate of Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, Glick was admitted to the bar in 1978. Her bar status is active in good standing, and she has no prior discipline.


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. 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: Here are the two research papers: 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.