The recent disciplinary case, Matter of Anonymous, is not the only time someone in Indiana has been disciplined for the conduct of another.
James Bell writes, “After stops in Ontario, Baltimore and Pennsylvania, I was raised in Alabama and later moved to Indiana where I became a United States citizen. Had I grown up in Northern Ireland, things may have been different for me.”
The Supreme Court of the United States recently held that an anonymous call to 911 was sufficient to initiate a traffic stop in certain specific circumstances. Navarette v. California, 2014 U.S. Lexis 2930 (2014). The decision set off a minor shockwave in the media with reports that the 5-4 opinion eroded Fourth Amendment protection.
At some point, you may have the wonderful opportunity to respond to a disciplinary grievance. With that in mind, here are three things to know about responding to a disciplinary commission grievance.
In 2012, the General Assembly amended Indiana’s public intoxication statute to provide, in part, that a person was guilty of public intoxication if the individual is intoxicated “in a public place” and “annoys … another person.” Indiana Code §7.1-5-1-3(a)(4). But what constitutes “annoying?”
Unfortunately, there comes a time in some attorney-client relationships when breakup is inevitable. You may have tried to “work things out” with your client, but things only got worse. So what do you do?
Danielle Kelly v. State is the first time that the Indiana Supreme Court has addressed law enforcement’s use of the “question first, Mirandize second” questioning technique. 997 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2013). Kelly also provides additional focus on the role technology plays in the changing scope of suspect/law enforcement interaction.
While social media has not mandated the creation of new ethical guidelines, it does make it easier to commit an ethical foul.
The case of In the Matter of T.D., — N.E.2d —-, 71S00-1104-DI-196 (Ind. Oct. 8, 2013), provided guidance to attorneys about judicial criticism.
James Bell and K. Michael Gaerte outline the three things to know about the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the right to remain silent.
The Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct define the term “advertising” broadly. Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 7.2(a) defines “advertising” as “any manner of communication partly or entirely intended or expected to promote the purchase or use of professional services.” (Emphasis added) Therefore, these rules cover communications on your website, blog and even social media. Regardless of whether or not you advertise on billboards, you likely need to pay attention to the advertising rules. Here are three things to know about legal advertising.
In the last term, the United States Supreme Court, in Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), took a small step toward inviting trial courts into plea negotiations.