Friday, December 22, 2017
The Indiana Supreme Court ordered a suspension of at least 90 days without automatic reinstatement
Respondent represented “Defendant” pending trial on multiple counts of child molesting and child solicitation. At some point, Defendant began recording phone conversations he had with Respondent. During those conversations, Respondent bragged about his personal relationships with judges in a manner that implied he had the ability to improperly influence judges. Respondent also spoke in pejorative terms about another client’s race, and in multiple conversations he discussed with Defendant the option of fleeing the jurisdiction to avoid or delay criminal prosecution.
After the Commission filed its complaint against Respondent, the parties filed a “Joint Motion to Set Matter for a Sanction Hearing” in which Respondent stipulated to having committed misconduct as charged. By agreement of the parties, the final hearing in this matter was converted to a hearing on sanction alone. Following issuance of the hearing officer’s report, neither party filed in this Court a petition for review or brief on sanction.
As to reinstatement
At the conclusion of the minimum period of suspension, Respondent may petition this Court for reinstatement to the practice of law in this state, provided Respondent pays the costs of this proceeding, fulfills the duties of a suspended attorney, and satisfies the requirements for reinstatement of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18). Reinstatement is discretionary and requires clear and convincing evidence of the attorney’s remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law. See Admis. Disc. R. 23(18)(b)(3).
A former client in a molestation case sued the attorney for legal malpractice. The Indiana Court of Appeals recently held that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. (Mike Frisch)