Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Opinion piece criticizes discipline of Muncie attorney
From a Muncie Star-Press opinion piece by Larry Riley, who teaches in the Department of English at Ball State:
One can’t help but conclude the Indiana Supreme Court simply was out to get Michael J. “Mick” Alexander, local attorney who last week got handed down a disciplinary action of 60 days suspension from practice.ILB: Here is an ILB post re the Court's order, and here is the June 18th order. The events covered in the two counts occurred in 2003 and 2005.
The case had dragged on and on, and the complaint itself goes back to actions from 10 years ago to start with.
A judge appointed by the Supreme Court, after a hearing in Richmond, wrote a lengthy recommendation in March that Alexander receive only a public reprimand for several transgressions.
One was allowing a disbarred attorney to perform some legal-related work in his office in 2003, another a failure to tell opposing counsel in a trial what a witness they already had deposed would testify to during a 2003 trial.
A former two-term county prosecutor who since became perhaps the most prominent criminal defense attorney in East Central Indiana, Alexander has no doubt made a lot of enemies over the years.
You’re in real trouble, though, when state Supreme Court jurists, who ignored the hearing officer’s recommendation, are after your hide.
As stated in the Court's order, Alexander had received several public reprimands in the past:
Aggravating and mitigating facts. We find the following facts in mitigation: (1) Respondent took corrective steps regarding his misconduct in employing McLaren; and (2) Respondent has expressed regret and embarrassment regarding his misconduct. A substantial fact in aggravation is Respondent's disciplinary history: Matter of Alexander, 504 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 1987) (agreed public reprimand); Matter of Alexander, 18S00-8606-DI-577 (Ind. Jan. 24, 1996) (agreed private reprimand); Matter of Alexander, 768 N.E.2d 892 (Ind. 2002) (agreed public reprimand).We have the dates of the three reprimands, but not the dates of the past incidents occasioning the reprimands. (although I was able to locate the 1987 reprimand, it was for a 1984 incident.)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 25, 2014 08:56 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions