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.



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. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.