Thursday, May 19, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Three disciplinary orders posted
Here are some quotes from the three orders:
In the Matter of Marietto V. Massillamany - Based on an incident on March 27, 2010, Respondent pled guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangers a person, a class A misdemeanor. See Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(b). At the time of the incident, he was employed as a Marion County deputy prosecutor. He resigned from that position shortly thereafter. Respondent has no disciplinary history. He contacted the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program after his arrest and has executed a monitoring agreement with the program. * * *
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, now approves the agreed discipline and imposes a public reprimand for Respondent's misconduct.
In the Matter of Steven R. Lloyd - On December 21, 2010, this Court ordered Respondent to show cause why Respondent should not be immediately suspended from the practice of law in this state for failure to cooperate with the Commission's investigation of a grievance filed against Respondent. The order required that Respondent show cause in writing within ten days of service of the order. Respondent has not submitted a response to the Court's order to show cause. On March 10, 2011, the Commission filed a "Request for Ruling and to Tax Costs."
Being duly advised, the Court ORDERS that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for noncooperation with the Commission, effective immediately.
In the Matter of Robert V. Monfort - While serving as a judge of the Jasper Superior Court 2 in 1998, Respondent presided over two cases in which T.W. was convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Respondent sentenced T.W. to 365 days incarceration.
In 2009, T.W. contacted Respondent, who was then in private practice. Respondent met with the prosecutor to explore the possibility of having T.W.'s convictions vacated. T.W., purportedly pro se, filed a petition to vacate both of his convictions. At a hearing on the petition, Respondent sat at the counsel table with T.W. When the presiding judge asked whether he was representing T.W., Respondent said he was not, but he was just there to "lay the background for the court." Later at the hearing, T.W. testified that Respondent's office had prepared the petition and that he paid Respondent for his legal services. * * *
The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct: 1.12(a): Representing someone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge without the consent of all parties to the proceeding. * * *
The parties propose the appropriate discipline is a 30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement. The discipline for Respondent's misconduct would likely be more severe had this matter been submitted without an agreement. However, in light of the Court's desire to foster agreed resolutions of lawyer disciplinary cases, the Court now APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 19, 2011 02:57 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions