Disciplinary Actions – 5/7/14

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission brings charges against attorneys who have violated the state’s rules for admission to the bar and Rules of Professional Conduct. The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications brings charges against judges, judicial officers, or judicial candidates for misconduct. Details of attorneys’ and judges’ actions for which they are being disciplined by the Supreme Court will be included unless they are not a matter of public record under the court’s rules.

Barred from Practice
Neil J. Greene, of Illinois, has been barred from practice in Indiana, per an April 16 order. Greene was hired by Franciscan Alliance Inc. to assist the hospitals with obtaining payments for medical care provided to patients who had been injured in accidents. The hospitals sent letters to patients using Greene’s letterhead and his firm’s signature block. This letter obscured the relationship between Franciscan and Greene as well as the purposes of his services, the order says. It created the impression that Greene was offering to advocate on behalf of the patient even though he was actually advocating on behalf of Franciscan.

Since the Disciplinary Commission’s investigation began, Green has ceased the use of the discharge letter and formed Hospital Reimbursement Services Inc. to provide services to Franciscan. Violations include engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Indiana. HRS is not barred from providing medical billing services as long as Green does so in circumstances that are distinct from providing legal services to clients.

Public reprimand
Karl N. Truman, of Clark County, received a public reprimand for engaging in attorney misconduct by making an employment agreement that restricted the rights of a lawyer to practice after termination of the employment relationship. The Supreme Court issued the reprimand April 29.•
 

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}