Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe Indiana Supreme Court has issued a trio of orders suspending three different attorneys for noncompliance with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.
Attorneys Kurt A. Schnepper, Rebecca L. Balanoff and Daniel J. Hancock have all been suspended effective immediately, per the May 5 orders.
Schnepper, of Evansville, was ordered to show cause on Feb. 21 as to why he shouldn’t be immediately suspended for failure to cooperate with grievances in Supreme Court cases 22S-DI-61 and 22S-DI-62.
On March 7, the Evansville lawyer filed identical unverified responses for each case, in which Schnepper acknowledged his noncooperation to date and claimed his intentions to cooperate going forward. The commission on April 4 then filed in each case a “Request for Ruling and to Tax Costs,” asserting that Schnepper had still failed to cooperate, to which Schnepper has not responded.
On top of his suspension, Schnepper was further ordered to reimburse the disciplinary commission $515.06 for the prosecuting and proceeding of DI-61. The court declined to separately order a reimbursement of costs in the second case.
Balanoff has also been suspended from the practice of law for noncompliance.
The Merrillville attorney was ordered to show cause on Dec. 14, 2021, as to why she should not be immediately suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for failure to cooperate with the commission’s investigation of a grievance against her, which she has not done. The commission filed a “Request for Ruling and to Tax Costs” on March 25, to which Balanoff also hasn’t responded.
Balanoff has been ordered to pay $529.38 for the costs of prosecuting the proceeding in 21S-DI-55.
Finally, Hancock, of Haubstadt, has also been suspended for noncompliance.
Hancock has not returned a response to a show cause, ordered by the Supreme Court on Jan. 24. The high court then issued a “Request for Ruling and to Tax Costs” on March 15 to which he has also not replied.
Hancock, whose case is 22S-DI-31, has been ordered to pay $529.72 for the costs of the proceeding.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.