« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 5 NFP) | Main | Ind. Decisions - The documents in the Barnes case [Updated] »

Friday, May 27, 2011

Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues two disciplinary rulings

In the Matter of the Honorable William J. Hughes, Judge of the Hamilton Superior Court is a 3-page per curiam opinion that rules:

The Commission asserts that the conduct recited above violates Rule 1.1 and 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. We agree with the Commission. The parties agree that Respondent cooperated with the Commission during its investigation and prosecution of this judicial disciplinary matter and that the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct is a public reprimand. We agree with the parties.

Accordingly, William J. Hughes, Judge in the Hamilton Superior Court, is hereby reprimanded.

ILB: For background, start with this May 13, 201 ILB entry.

In the 4-page, per curiam opinion In the Matter of Joshua A. Parilman the court writes:

Respondent practices law in Arizona and is not licensed in Indiana. In spring of 2010, he caused radio stations broadcasting in Indiana to air an advertisement inviting listeners involved in traffic accidents to call him. * * * At least two Indiana residents responded to the advertisement. Respondent's only office is located in Phoenix and he is not part of a national law firm. He is not certified as a specialist in any field of practice by either Indiana or Arizona. In fact, neither Indiana nor Arizona certify lawyers in the area of "automobile accidents." * * *

Discipline: The parties propose the following discipline: Respondent will be barred indefinitely from acts constituting the practice of law in this state, including temporary admission and solicitation of clients, until further order of the Court, and he will pay the costs of this proceeding. We have imposed similar discipline on out-of-state attorneys who have violated this state's client solicitation rules, see Matter of Coale, 775 N.E.2d 1079, 1085 (Ind. 2002), and conclude that this is appropriate in the current case.

Conclusion. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, now approves the agreed discipline and bars Respondent indefinitely from acts constituting the practice of law in this state, including temporary admission and solicitation of clients, until further order of the Court.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 27, 2011 01:22 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions