Indy attorney gets 30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement for impermissible communication with represented litigant

  • 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
IL file photo

An Indianapolis attorney will serve a 30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement in the new year after she impermissibly communicated with a represented litigant and made false statements to the court about that communication.

Angela Trapp’s suspension will begin Jan. 22, 2024, according to the Supreme Court’s Monday order in In the Matter of Angela Sallee Field Trapp, 22S-DI-254.

According to the Supreme Court, Trapp was representing a husband in consolidated divorce and protective order proceedings initiated after a domestic dispute. She was also representing the husband in a related criminal matter.

In April 2019, the wife’s protective order petition was granted and the husband’s was dismissed.

Around that same time, an agreed provisional order was entered in the divorce case listing the remaining issues to be resolved as attorney fees, valuation of marital assets and division of the marital estate. The marital assets included several firearms that were allegedly in the home at the time of the domestic incident, though police did not find them when they searched the property.

Without notifying the wife’s counsel, Trapp subpoenaed the wife in the criminal case and took a taped statement from her in August 2019. During the interview, Trapp asked the wife questions about the domestic incident, the firearms and other marital property over the objection of the deputy prosecutor, who referenced the divorce case and the wife’s right to have her counsel present.

Trapp was later confronted by the wife’s counsel about the interview, but she claimed there weren’t any questions about the divorce case.

The wife’s counsel filed a motion for an order to produce the taped statement. Trapp objected but the court issued an order to produce.

In November 2020, the wife’s successor counsel moved for Trapp to be disqualified in the divorce case due to her questioning of the wife without her counsel present.

But in February 2021, successor counsel appeared for the husband in the divorce case and Trapp withdrew her appearance. The motion to disqualify was then denied as moot.

In July 2022, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a complaint alleging Trapp’s conduct violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.2 and 8.4(d) of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct.

The hearing officer recommended a short suspension with automatic reinstatement, and Trapp sought review.

Trapp conceded that she violated Rule 4.2, and the Supreme Court agreed with the hearing officer’s conclusion that she violated Rules 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(d).

“Respondent points to her own testimony that the reference to ‘Wife’s counsel’ having been given notice of the taped statement was a scrivener’s error,” the justices ruled in a per curiam opinion. “But Respondent’s testimony was not credited and finds little circumstantial support in the record. Moreover, Respondent does not explain why she failed to correct this false statement, which Rule 3.3(a)(1) also required her to do.”

Further, “Respondent’s acts of misconduct unduly prolonged the litigation in the Divorce Case, required the court and Wife’s counsel to expend additional resources to force Respondent to turn over the taped statement, and led to disqualification proceedings that ultimately compelled Husband to retain new counsel. This easily meets the threshold for prejudice under Rule 8.4(d).”

The court noted that while it has regularly imposed reprimands for similar violations of Rule 4.2, Trapp’s additional acts of dishonesty toward the court in the divorce case elevated it to a more serious level that warranted a short suspension.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justices Mark Massa, Geoffery Slaughter and Christopher Goff concurred, but Justice Derek Molter dissented from the sanction, believing a public reprimand was warranted.

According to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, Trapp was admitted to the Indiana bar in October 2007 and has no prior discipline.

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 }}