Disciplinary Actions: Jan. 1-March 31, 2023

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.

Conditional reinstatement

Michigan City attorney Robert C. Neary was conditionally reinstated to the practice of law in Indiana in a Feb. 9 order and was placed on probation for at least three years, with monitoring by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. Neary had been suspended pursuant to a Nov. 6, 2017, order, and he petitioned for reinstatement on Dec. 21, 2021. The hearing officer recommended that reinstatement be denied. Neary has been ordered to pay any costs owed under Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(d). Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justice Christopher Goff dissented and would not have granted reinstatement at this time.

Probation

Indianapolis attorney Adam M. Dulik was suspended for 60 days, all stayed subject to the completion of at least one year of probation with JLAP monitoring, effective Jan. 12. Dulik violated Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(a) and 1.16(d) when he failed to respond to multiple client inquiries about the status of a personal injury claim, communicate with third parties relevant to the claim, obtain relevant records and documentation, file a lawsuit on the client’s behalf, and acknowledge that the client had terminated him as her attorney. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

Public reprimand

Fairland attorney Bruce E. McLane was issued a public reprimand in a Feb. 9 order. McLane violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d) and 3.2 when he failed to appear at hearings, failed to communicate adequately with his bankruptcy client and did not respond to the trial court’s attempts to communicate regarding his failures to appear. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against him.

Resignation

Jeffersonville attorney Bruce Andis resigned from the Indiana bar, effective Jan. 26. Andis resigned pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17), which requires an acknowledgement that the material facts alleged in a Jan. 4 disciplinary complaint are true and that he could not successfully defend himself if prosecuted. Andis can petition for reinstatement after five years. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

Gary attorney Eric O. Clark resigned from the Indiana bar, effective Jan. 26. Clark resigned pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17) after he was accused of hugging and kissing a potential client and soliciting sexual favors from her in exchange for a discount on attorney fees. Later, Clark allegedly offered to represent the potential client for free if she did not report his misconduct. Clark can petition for reinstatement after five years. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him. Rush dissented, believing disbarment was warranted.

Zionsville attorney Steven J. Kasyjanski resigned from the Indiana bar, effective Feb. 10. Kasyjanski resigned after pleading guilty to Level 4 felony child exploitation. He can petition for reinstatement after five years. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

Suspension

Haubstadt attorney Daniel J. Hancock was suspended for 60 days without automatic reinstatement, effective April 6. Hancock violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a)(4), 1.4(b) and 1.16(d) when he was paid a $1,000 retainer but did not enter an appearance on behalf of the client, did not appear at hearings and did not respond to client communications. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against him.

Monticello attorney Clinton Andrew Hardesty was suspended for two years without automatic reinstatement in a Feb. 27 opinion from the Indiana Supreme Court. Hardesty violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 3.4(c) and 8.4(d) when he repeatedly failed to appear for scheduled court hearings. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against him.

Merrillville attorney Robert McMahon was suspended for two years without automatic reinstatement in a March 8 opinion from the Supreme Court. McMahon violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) by possessing child pornography. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him. Rush and Justice Mark Massa dissented regarding the sanction, believing disbarment was warranted.

Crown Point attorney Shane Ryan O’Donnell was suspended for 60 days effective March 23, with 30 days actively served and the remainder stayed subject to the completion of at least two years of probation with JLAP monitoring. O’Donnell violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.16(a)(2), 3.2, 3.4(d), 4.1(a), 5.3(b) and 8.4(d) when he failed to attend scheduled hearings and when his staff falsely told defense counsel that a motion to vacate a hearing had been granted, resulting in the dismissal of his client’s suit with prejudice. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

Indianapolis attorney Mark Small’s probation was revoked in a March 16 order, which imposed a one-year suspension without automatic reinstatement, effective April 20. Small was suspended for one year in May 2021, all stayed subject to the completion of at least three years of probation. The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a motion to revoke Small’s probation on Jan. 13, asserting he violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4 in connection with his representation of an incarcerated client whose mother retained Small to file a petition for certiorari on her son’s behalf. That petition was never filed, and there is no evidence that a $7,500 retainer was repaid. Small must pay the costs of the proceeding, fulfill the duties of a suspended attorney and satisfy the requirements of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18) to file for reinstatement, which is discretionary and requires clear and convincing evidence of his remorse, rehabilitation and fitness to practice law. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.

South Bend attorney John R. Voor’s suspension for noncooperation was converted to an indefinite suspension in a March 9 order. Voor was suspended Oct. 12, 2022, for failing to cooperate with a Disciplinary Commission investigation into a grievance filed against him. The commission moved to convert Voor’s suspension to an indefinite suspension pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10.1)(c)(4), and Voor did not respond to that motion. To be readmitted, Voor must cure the causes of all suspensions in effect and successfully petition the Supreme Court for reinstatement pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(b).

Vacated suspension

The suspension orders issued in Case No. 21S-DI-388 on Nov. 16, 2021, and March 31, 2022, against Indianapolis attorney J. David Massey were vacated after the Disciplinary Commission filed a motion indicating the grievant had not intended to file the grievance against Massey, but rather against another attorney with a similar name. However, Massey remains under suspension in one or more cases, so he will not be shown as reinstated to the practice of law in Indiana until all causes for suspension are cured.•