ILNews

Valparaiso attorney slapped with 5th felony charge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Valparaiso attorney Clark Holesinger, charged last month with four felony counts alleging he stole more than $1.6 million from clients, now faces a fifth count alleging theft from another client.

Charges against Holesinger were amended Monday in Porter Superior Court to add a charge of Class D felony theft. Holesinger has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which also include four previously filed counts of Class C felony theft of more than $100,000.

A probable cause affidavit from the Porter County Sheriff’s Department led to the additional charge accusing Holesinger, 52, of skimming $6,313 last November from a client for whom he exercised power of attorney.

The client requested a transfer of $306,313 from a trust to a business account, but the probable cause accuses Holesinger of instead forging the client’s signature authorizing transfer of the sum to his trust account, then moving just $300,000 to the client’s business account.

Holesinger’s attorney, Thomas Vanes of Merrillville, could not be reached for comment early Tuesday.

The charges filed last month accuse Holesinger of stealing more than $1.6 million over the past three years from four businesses he represented. Charging information accuses Holesinger of stealing $817,962 from North Star Stone; $233,410 from RBF Island Investment LLC; $215,406 from ITF LLC; and $371,736 from Maridor LLC. All of the companies are located in Valparaiso and owned by Chris Andrews, according to the probable cause affidavit, which says Holesinger also had been Andrews’ family attorney since the mid-1990s.

A civil suit the businesses filed against Holesinger details the numerous checks that were written to pay taxes but instead were allegedly converted to Holesinger’s use, including 97 exhibits of alleged misappropriation. The suit seeks treble damages, attorney fees and accounting costs.

Admitted to practice in 1987, the Indiana Roll of Attorneys lists Holesinger’s law license status as active in good standing with no disciplinary history and no pending discipline.

 

 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT