ILNews

Suspended attorney gets 3 more months

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An Indianapolis attorney is getting one last warning from the Indiana Supreme Court before being suspended indefinitely from practicing law.

Attorney Wilburn G. Lowry of Marion County received an additional 90 days on his suspension handed down nearly a year ago, with the court specifically noting in its Jan. 11, 2008, order that "any future suspension for failure to meet CLE or dues requirements shall result in an indefinite suspension."

In the order In the Matter of Contempt of the Supreme Court of Indiana of Wilburn G. Lowry, the court added an additional three months of suspension after learning that Lowry had practiced law while suspended.

Lowry was suspended Jan. 22, 2007, for 120 days after his admission that he had practiced law at least once during the summer of 2006, when he'd been suspended for failing to meet CLE requirements. He petitioned to be reinstated in July 2007, but the Commission for Continuing Legal Education objected and asserted that Lowry had practiced law at least once in May 2007 during his suspension. Later last year, Lowry admitted that he had made a call to opposing counsel to discuss the possibility of settlement in a case that had "slipped through the cracks" and was set for hearing that month.

The Jan. 11 order also notes that Lowry has recently practiced law on at least two other occasions while suspended, but it doesn't elaborate.

Lowry has a laundry list of nine disciplinary actions dating to 1996 for continuing legal education violations, fee issues, contempt, and previously practicing law while suspended, according to the most recent Indiana Supreme Court order.

A phone number listed with the Indiana Roll of Attorneys had been disconnected this morning at Lowry's Southport Road office in Indianapolis, and he couldn't be reached for comment.

At the end of the suspension, Lowry shall be automatically readmitted to the practice of law subject to the condition that any future suspension for the failure to meet CLE or dues requirements will result in an indefinite suspension from the practice of law without further order of the court and reinstatement in such instance would be only upon satisfying the requirements of Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4)(b).
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT