ILNews

Valparaiso attorney charged with stealing $1.6M resigns

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Valparaiso attorney charged with five counts of theft for allegedly stealing more than $1.6 million from business clients he represented has resigned from the Indiana bar.

Clark W. Holesinger, 52, tendered his resignation which was accepted last week by order of the Indiana Supreme Court. But the justices aren’t finished dealing with the Holesinger matter just yet.

The order dated March 12 does not specify the nature of the disciplinary proceeding against Holesinger. It notes, though, that his resignation affidavit “requires an acknowledgement that there is presently pending an investigation into or a proceeding involving allegations of misconduct and that (Holesinger) could not successfully defend himself if prosecuted” by the court’s Disciplinary Commission.

The commission filed no verified complaint against Holesinger – the public disclosure of disciplinary action – and the court order accepting his resignation is the only public information available about his disciplinary case, according to Supreme Court outreach coordinator Sarah Kidwell.

Under Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17), Holesinger’s resignation affidavit “shall not be publicly disclosed or made available for use in any other proceeding except upon order of this court.”

Holesinger was charged in February with four counts of Class C felony theft of more than $100,000, and the charges last week were amended to include a fifth count of Class D felony theft.

The charges are an outgrowth of a civil suit filed against Holesinger in Porter Superior Court on behalf of four Valparaiso businesses. Holesinger is accused of stealing more than $1.6 million over the past three years from companies owned by Chris Andrews. Holesinger had been Andrews’ family attorney since the mid-90s, according to the lawsuit.

That case is currently without a presiding judge. In January, Porter Superior 2 Judge William Alexa granted Holesinger’s motion for a special judge. Porter Superior 4 Judge David Chidester was assigned the case but declined jurisdiction. On Feb. 18, the court petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for a special judge, but as of Monday, no special judge appointment was reflected on the docket.

Meanwhile, a second civil suit in Porter County accuses Holesinger of legal malpractice.


 

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT