ILNews

Supreme Court suspends attorney for misrepresentation, domestic battery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has suspended from practice a Chicago attorney who misrepresented his abilities to a client and was convicted of battery against his wife.

In the disciplinary case of In the Matter of: Narles W. Coleman, 98S00-1301-DI-52, a client was charged with Class C felony child molestation and, shortly thereafter, received a letter from attorney Narles Coleman seeking to represent the client for a “reasonable fee.” According to the Indiana Supreme Court’s per curiam opinion issued Tuesday, Coleman falsely told the client he was associated with The Cochran Firm of Johnnie Cochran fame.

In reality, Coleman had minimal experience in criminal law and no experience in child molesting cases, the unanimous court wrote.  The client paid Coleman part of a flat fee of $4,000, but then began having trouble communicating with Coleman. The attorney failed to appear at a pretrial conference, deceived the client into signing a new fee agreement for $200 an hour, and agreed to a plea agreement without consulting his client, even though the client had previously said he would not enter a plea agreement and, thus, refused to sign.

After the client fired him, Coleman did not withdraw his representation or forward a copy of the case file to the client’s new counsel until a show cause proceeding was initiated against him.  After the criminal charge was eventually dismissed, Coleman sent the client a bill for more than $9,000, predicated on the new fee agreement and filed a civil suit to collect the money.

Further, Coleman sought to collect additional money for time spent and expenses incurred in connection with withdrawing from the case and filing the civil suit. At a deposition of a witness that Coleman named, he failed to reveal that the witness was his wife.

Then in October 2012, Coleman was charged with felony and misdemeanor counts of domestic battery stemming from allegations that he hit his wife in the presence of four children. He was convicted of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery in July 2013 and the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a complaint against him one year later.

After a hearing officer’s report was filed in September 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court found Tuesday that Coleman was in violation of 20 Indiana Professional Conduct Rules, including failing to provide competent representation; making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an unreasonable fee; and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Although Coleman’s misconduct was mostly limited to the client’s case, the court found that such misconduct was “wide-ranging, pervasive, retaliatory, and deceptive at multiple junctures.”

“Respondent’s systemic malfeasance in connection with his representation of Client, his criminal conduct, and his less-than-effective self–representation during most of these disciplinary proceedings reflect exceedingly poorly on his fitness to practice law,” the court wrote in its per curiam opinion.

The court noted that Coleman is already under an order of suspension for dues nonpayment and failing to fulfill CLE requirements. His misconduct led to an additional two-year suspension without automatic reinstatement. In order to be reinstated, Coleman must prove his remorse, rehabilitation and fitness to practice. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against him.
 

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. Residents can't vote under our current system? Okay, let's replace the system with another system where they can't vote. Yeah, that's the ticket!

  2. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  3. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  4. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  5. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

ADVERTISEMENT