In re Bryan

771 N.E.2d 77 (Ind. 2002) · Indiana Supreme Court · July 15, 2002

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court approved a conditional agreement imposing a 90-day suspension from the practice of law on the respondent. The discipline arose from failures to communicate with a client, document a contingency-fee agreement, supervise co-counsel, refund an unearned fee, and respond to the Disciplinary Commission, as well as misrepresentation concerning the status of litigation.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Shepard, C.J.; Dickson, J.; Sullivan, J.; Rucker, J.; Boehm, J.
Jurisdiction
Indiana
Decision date
July 15, 2002
Procedural posture
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and the respondent submitted a Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline for the court's approval.
Precedential value
Published Indiana Supreme Court disciplinary order; binding as to the disposition and the professional-conduct rules applied.
Disposition
approved

Topics

administrative law

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplineprofessional responsibility

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Indiana Supreme Court should approve the parties' Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline.
  2. What discipline should be imposed for the stipulated professional-conduct violations.

Holdings

  1. The court approved the parties' Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline.
  2. The respondent was suspended from the practice of law for ninety days, effective August 17, 2002, with automatic reinstatement thereafter, and was assessed the costs of the proceeding.

Key quotations

The Court, having considered the submission of the parties, now APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline, noting, however, that conduct involving deceit is grievously harmful to the public and the profession and generally warrants suspension. (78)

Factual background

The respondent agreed to assist another attorney in representing a civil claimant, but the client was not informed that respondent had been engaged as co-counsel and had not entered into a written contingency-fee agreement. Respondent failed properly to defend a summary-judgment motion, falsely told the other attorney that the case was proceeding after judgment had disposed of it, and the client did not learn of the judgment for four years. In a separate matter, respondent failed to refund an unearned $300 fee and failed to respond to the Commission's demand for information concerning a grievance.

Procedural history

The Disciplinary Commission and respondent stipulated to facts, violations, and a proposed sanction under the Indiana Admission and Discipline Rules. The Indiana Supreme Court approved the agreement and ordered a ninety-day suspension with automatic reinstatement.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…