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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT