« Ind Courts - More on: Brief of Charlie White in appeal of his trial court criminal conviction | Main | Ind Courts - Still more on: Brief of Charlie White in appeal of his trial court criminal conviction »

Monday, September 10, 2012

Ind. Decisions - Two major disciplinary orders today from the Supreme Court

In In the Matter of Janice R. Gambill, a 2-page, 5-0 order filed Sept. 7, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than six months, without automatic reinstatement, beginning October 19, 2012. From the facts (emphasis is in the original):

In April 2008, a client retained Respondent to file a legal malpractice action against an Illinois attorney who represented the client in a personal injury case in an Illinois state court, which had been dismissed for want of prosecution. Respondent filed a personal injury action for the client in the Northern District of Indiana, which was dismissed as being filed beyond the statute of limitation. Respondent did not respond to the client's requests for information about his legal malpractice action. She then falsely told him a legal malpractice action had been filed in the Northern District of Indiana, that the lawyer had a certain deadline to respond to it, giving him the cause number of the personal injury action that had been dismissed. She canceled two appointments with the client, and then, on July 13, 2010, filed a legal malpractice action against the Illinois attorney in the Northern District of Indiana.
In In the Matter of Deborah S. Davis Julian f/k/a Kubley, a 3-page, 4-1 order filed Sept. 7, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than two years, without automatic reinstatement, effective as of the date of this order. From the order:
Stipulated Facts: Respondent admits to six counts of professional misconduct occurring from 2008 through 2011. The misconduct consists of: neglecting clients' cases, failing to do the work for which she was hired, failing to informs clients about the status of their cases and respond to their reasonable requests for information, failing to appear at a pretrial conference and at hearings, failing to inform a client of when a hearing had been set, failing to disclose this fact to the court, failing to take court-mandated steps to prevent dismissal of a client's case, failing to refund unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with the Commission's requests for responses to grievances and a subpoena duces tecum. * * *

All Justices concur, except David, J., who dissents, believing that the discipline is insufficient and that disbarment is appropriate.

[More] Here is an example of a reinstatement. In the Matter of Patrick M. Schrems, filed August 30, 2012. Some quotes:
By order dated March 11, 2010, this Court suspended Petitioner for not less than six months without automatic reinstatement. Petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement on June 7, 2011. On July 18, 2012, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(b), filed its recommendation that Petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law in Indiana conditioned on certain terms of probation.
Read the rest of the order and its terms for yourself; it is pretty onerous to get reinstated and takes quite a long time.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 10, 2012 04:29 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions