Supreme Court suspends disability rights attorney, rejects discrimination allegations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An attorney who claims the Indiana Supreme Court is seeking retaliatory action against him because of his work as a disability rights advocate has been suspended from the practice of law.

In a Tuesday disciplinary order, the state’s highest court suspended Schaumburg, Illionis, attorney Andrew U.D. Straw for 180 days without automatic reinstatement after finding that he violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 3.1 on four different occasions. Straw’s disciplinary action began in 2016, when Judge James Ahler, the hearing officer in the case, found that Straw had violated Rule 3.1 by filing four “frivolous” lawsuits.

In each of the suits – Straw v. Kloecker, Straw v. American Bar Association, et al., Straw v. Sconiers and Rutherford v. Zalas  –  Straw contended that he was advocating for the rights of people with disabilities, including himself. The attorney said he contracted scoliosis and bipolar disorder from his time spent as a child at Camp LeJeune, where his father was stationed as a Marine during the Vietnam War.

Rule 3.1 prohibits an attorney from bringing a proceeding without a basis in law for doing so. Ahler recommended that Straw be suspended without automatic reinstatement for his violations of the rule, but Straw filed a federal lawsuit to bar the high court from imposing disciplinary sanctions against him, arguing that the disciplinary complaint was filed only because he spoke out against what he perceived as disability discrimination by the court. Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed without prejudice Straw’s case against the Supreme Court last month.

“Further, we categorically reject respondent’s arguments that he is being persecuted for his disability-related advocacy,” the Supreme Court order reads. “A necessary corollary of the frivolousness of Respondent’s lawsuits is that no relief benefitting the plaintiffs (whether a client or Respondent himself) possibly could have come from those actions.”

“Further, Respondent’s actions risked harm to himself and his client in the form of sanctions, and by Respondent’s own acknowledgment the relief he sought in Straw v. American Bar Association, et al., could have led to discrimination against disabled law school faculty,” the order continues. “In sum, Respondent does not face discipline for standing up for disabled persons’ rights, as he perceives, but rather for having done so incompetently.”

Straw will be eligible to petition for reinstatement after 180 days, and his petition can be granted if he proves his remorse, rehabilitation and fitness to practice law. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against him.

All justices concurred except Justice Steve David, who believes the sanction is insufficient.


  • Caveat: Just not in Indiana
    Abuse of power, in the form of "malfeasance in office" or "official misconduct," is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election. Abuse of power - Wikipedia
  • Injustice x3
    Mr. Shaw, I find it strange that one state has no problems with u but the state of indiana threw u under the bus. Im not shocked they seem to play by their own rules and if they dont like u. Guess what? They do it in a passive aggressive way.. Anyone who goes against them... They make a person pay the price...
    • Speaks volumes
      Andrew, your VA case test flew the Hoosier system, and showed it unworthy of American air space. So does my experience. I was a fellow of the SCOTUS (still am) who had just been cleared for character and fitness in Missouri in 2006 when I applied to Indiana in 2007. Had been an active KS attorney since 1996, written opinions from half the federal appellate courts, me as lead counsel. I spent nine years trying to merely pass character and fitness in Indiana ... they allowed me to sit for their bar exam ... (I think I surprised them when I passed 20 year after passing the KS bar) ... only to again slam the door in my face! One year later, I am a judge in KS, doing licensure cases. (BUT not at all like the BLE does, I assure you.) My case also involves the ADA, specifically the Soviet style misuse of mental health labels to brand an applicant politically disfavored by the BLE and JLAP (i.e. politically incorrect), all with the ready and repeated concurrence of the ISC. I was cleared by MO just before coming to IN, elevated to bench in KS just after leaving IN. I documented, serial, beyond cavil violations of even Indiana's own rules, by the Indiana bureaucrats running the operation against me. Indiana's system is not a justice system, is not built on due process of law, is both unconstitutional and unAmerican. While many who took capricious and arbitrary action against me no longer work in that system, too many, including in JLAP, the BLE and even an ADA coordinator who destroyed evidence of record (in a manner that would get you or me disbarred) still enjoy the favor of the ISC and the great advantage of state employment, a perch from which they can continue to strike out against their ideological foes. You proved much, Andrew. So have I. Seems it does not much matter to the Hoosier PTB, since those at the top, sadly, just do not give a damn. Peace with those who would deal unjustly is more important than justice in the good old boys/girls club.
    • VSB Rejects Indiana Discipline
      The Virginia State Bar suspended my license on an interim basis until I could have a hearing on May 19, 2017. The Indiana Supreme Court has been going around, interfering with my other bar admissions to make the most of its injury to me. VSB listened to me and considered 1,500 pages of evidence I had of discrimination and retaliation from the Indiana courts. VSB could find no precedent for imposing any discipline on me at all. And so, Indiana's discipline request was DENIED. I have always found Virginia to be more professional than Indiana. I worked for a billionaire in Virginia on national security matters and court record reform before I worked at the Indiana Supreme Court. I had hoped to spread the innovation of Virginia in Indiana, but instead faced 16 years of discrimination after my car accident and after the Court learned of my U.S. Marine Corps disability. They took away my handicap parking space by the office. They revealed my Marine Corps disability to my coworkers and colleagues. They fired me after an FMLA leave. Try as I might to have respect for the office of Indiana justice, I have none for these after what they have done.
    • U.S. Supreme Court Review
      I did finally seek certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the docket entry, which shows that the SCOTUS is going to review my petition in conference on June 22, 2017.
    • Disabilities Page
      I think it is important for everyone to see the level of injury I received physically from working at the Indiana Supreme Court as its statistical analyst and staff attorney. Their attacks on me just magnify the injuries I have already sustained serving all 400+ courts in the state of Indiana.
    • Supreme Court Vacancy Preemptive Strike
      It may also be worthwhile telling your readers that I filed earlier this month to be a candidate for the Justice Rucker vacancy. Just a matter of days after my complete application was filed, the Indiana Supreme Court attacked me by suspending my license for 180 days. I have never had any discipline before, and no one outside that Court complained. ONLY the ADA Coordinator after my complaint about the Court. So, these justices are attacking and violating the ADA rights of a potential colleague. I think it's dirty pool, and they should all be removed for the ADA and Rule 8.4(g) violations.
    • Appeal
      The federal court has today dismissed my case against the Indiana Supreme Court, on two grounds. 1. Middlesex/Younger, which provides that a federal court MAY (not must) abstain from exercising jurisdiction when there is a parallel court case. But Middlesex also gave the attorney involved an evidentiary hearing to allow him to establish bad faith and harassment. I asked, but got no due process, no hearing, just the name of this Middlesex case slammed in my face. There is harassment and bad faith here, and any neutral person would be astounded how the actions of the state courts are being defended. 2. The other reason was res judicata for a 2015 case, but that case was decided based on inadequacy of service, and it is common knowledge that res judicata does not apply in such cases. So, the federal judge was wrong twice. But she was kind enough to let me know that I could appeal to the SCOTUS. Like that 3% chance of review was going to protect my ADA rights that she denied in HER COURT. I have appealed to the 7th Circuit.
    • IFP
      Like the judge in my case against 5 local governments in N. Illinois, Judge Magnus-Stinson granted my IFP motion. 28 USC 1915(e) provides that IFP may not be granted if a case is frivolous, malicious, or does not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. So, being granted that status means the Court thinks my case is not frivolous. It means the Court thinks my case is not malicious. It means I have stated claims upon which relief could be granted. So, under those circumstances, let's get to it! I have proven discrimination and retaliation under the ADA, Titles II & V. There has been bad faith on the other side to go along with the discrimination and retaliation. There have been dishonest distortions by the Indiana Supreme Court and its staff, and there has been a total lack of remorse for the 16 years of suffering inflicted on me by that court. I have an expert witness who evaluated the situation and he said there appears to be a sort of "group psychopathy" within the Indiana Supreme Court that is directed most painfully at me. Even after all of my service and sacrifices to the Indiana courts.
    • Disability Lawyer Punished for Speaking Up
      This is Andrew Straw. It is important for this newspaper to note that my case was never dismissed. Judge Magnus-Stinson refused to protect me with an injunction, but has not dismissed my case. She is deciding that question now. The whole defense revolves around the Younger and Middlesex cases, and whether she will abstain from exercising jurisdiction. However, that doctrine falls to pieces when there is bad faith and harassment. The Indiana Supreme Court has distorted my cases, saying it was impossible for me to win, but that's false. The judges were wrong in each case, and in any event, I have a right to ask for change. In my one case out of the four with a client, my client did not complain. And my work for him was 100% right. His parental rights were being denied, and now, in this very month, the ABA has come out with a resolution supporting what I was saying 100%. 2017 ABA Resolution 114. So, right there, the Supreme Court was lying and distorting. The National Council on Disability also agreed with me in 2012 with a 449-page report on the subject. In the Kloecker case, the Supreme Court distorted the facts again. They did not mention that this huge law firm threatened me with $1,000 per day fines from Medicare if I did not give my Medicare claims database access to its NEWSPAPER client, to use as they wanted to. How outrageous is that? And Medicare agreed with me, saying that I would never get such fines and the law firm was "misleading" in making that demand. LYING is a better word. And let's not forget that Locke Lord hired the law firm employer of the district judge for the appeal. THIS is why I got no sanction, and the Supreme Court distorted that result into being about my income and nothing more. The Supreme Court is packed with people who resent my sacrifices of both my legs and my pelvis, and they want to add more hurt to all of that pain. I still feel pain every day from that accident, even 16 years later. They have no right. No right to allow the ADA Coordinator to reveal my health information. No right for her to retaliate with a disciplinary complaint. And you know what? I contacted ADA Coordinators in all 92 Indiana counties, and not a single one would defend what Rodeheffer did. All of these justices and their dishonest staff need to go. They need to resign or be removed, because what they did to me this week is beyond the pale. They suspended my license just days after I applied to replace J Rucker. That was dirty pool. They failed to create a disability rights and fairness commission, just like the punished me when I wanted ABA stats to include disability. Race and gender are favored, while my demands for disabled people are punished. I hope the federal judge punishes them for violating the ADA and defying the federal court, which has not dismissed my case as of this date.

    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. Building social-media presence is inevitable for Law Firms. These tips are very useful to strengthen social media presence. Thank you for sharing this.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. We are a Finance Industry Company professionals with over 15 Years Experience and a focus on providing Bank Guarantee and Standby Letter of Credit from some of the World Top 25 Prime Banks primarily from Barclays, Deutsche Bank, HSBC,Credit Suisse e.t.c. FEATURES: Amounts from $1 million to 5 Billion+ Euro’s or US Dollars Great Attorney Trust Account Protection Delivered via MT760, MT799 and MT103 Swift with Full Bank Responsibility Brokers Always Protected Purchase Instrument of BG/SBLC : 32%+2% Min Face Value cut = EUR/USD 1M-5B Lease Instrument of BG/SBLC : 4%+2% Min Face Value cut = EUR/USD 1M-5B Interested Agents/Brokers, Investors and Individual proposing international project funding should contact us for directives.We will be glad to share our working procedures with you upon request. We Facilitate Bank instruments SBLC for Lease and Purchase. Whether you are a new startup, medium or large establishment that needs a financial solution to fund/get your project off the ground or business looking for extra capital to expand your operation,our company renders credible and trusted bank guarantee provider who are willing to fund and give financing solutions that suits your specific business needs. We help you secure and issue sblc and bank guarantee for your trade, projects and investment from top AA rated world Banks like HSBC, Barclays, Dutch Ing Bank, Llyods e.t.c because that’s the best and safest strategy for our clients.e.t.c DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENTS 1. Instrument: Funds backed Bank Guarantee(BG) ICC-600 2. Currency : USD/EURO 3. Age of Issue: Fresh Cut 4. Term: One year and One day 5. Contract Amount: United State Dollars/Euros (Buyers Face Value) 6. Price : Buy:32%+1, Lease: 4%+2 7. Subsequent tranches: To be mutually agreed between both parties 8. Issuing Bank: Top RATED world banks like HSBC, Barclays, ING Dutch Bank, Llyods e.t.c 9. Delivery Term: Pre advise MT199 or MT799 first. Followed By SWIFT MT760 10. Payment Term: MT799 & Settlement via MT103 11. Hard Copy: By Bank Bonded Courier Interested Agents,Brokers, Investors and Individual proposing international project funding should contact us for directives.We will be glad to share our working procedures with you upon request. Name:Richardson McAnthony Contact Mail :

    5. Affordable Loan Offer ( NEED A LOAN?Sometime i really wanna help those in a financial problems.i was wondering why some people talks about inability to get a loan from a bank/company. have you guys ever try Eric Benson lending cost dollars to loan from their company. my aunty from USA,just got a home loan from Eric Benson Lending banking card service.and they gave her a loan of 8,000,000 USD. they give out loan from 100,000 USD - 100,000,000 USD. try it yourself and testimony. have a great day as you try.Kiss & Hug. Contact E-mail: