Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowTwo Hoosier attorneys have been suspended from the practice of law in the State of Indiana for noncooperation.
The Indiana Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Porter County attorney Timothy E. Vojslavek effective April 12. Vojslavek already had been suspended for noncooperation in December 2018. While the nature of the complaint against him was not disclosed, it came one day after Vojslavek was convicted in a Porter County bench trial of a misdemeanor count of invasion of privacy after he was accused of violating a protective order.
More than 90 days have passed since Vojslavek was suspended, and the commission requested that suspension be converted to an indefinite suspension. Vojslavek has failed to respond to the motion to convert, and justices therefore ordered the indefinite suspension, effective immediately.
If Vojslavek wishes to be readmitted to the practice of law, he must “cure the causes of all suspensions in effect and successfully petition (the Supreme) Court for reinstatement pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(b),” according to the order.
Similarly, the high court ordered Merrillville attorney Arthur C. Johnson be suspended from the practice of law for noncooperation effective immediately pursuant to a separate Friday order.
In February 2019, Johnson was ordered to show cause as to why he should not be immediately suspended from the practice of law for failure to cooperate with the commission’s investigation of a grievance against him relating to pending allegations professional misconduct. Johnson failed to respond to the order, and again did not respond to the commission’s request for ruling and to tax costs, asserting Johnson had not yet cooperated. The nature of the complaint against Johnson was not disclosed.
His suspension is to remain in effect until the commission can certify Johnson’s cooperation, or until further order of the Supreme Court. Johnson was also ordered to pay $522.69 for the costs of prosecuting the proceeding.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.