Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court considered objections to Michael B. Haughee’s automatic reinstatement following a suspension from practicing law. The Court found that Haughee undertook a new legal matter after receiving notice of his suspension, practiced law while suspended, and failed to timely file the required affidavit, and it extended his suspension by 45 days.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Commission's supplemental objections to automatic reinstatement were timely and properly considered.
- Whether Haughee undertook a new legal matter after receiving notice of his suspension and before the suspension became effective.
- Whether Haughee practiced law during the period of his suspension.
- Whether Haughee violated the applicable disciplinary rules by failing timely to file the required suspension affidavit.
- What sanction was appropriate for the violations.
Holdings
- The court could consider the Commission's supplemental materials because they supplemented objections that had been timely filed more than ten days before the scheduled automatic reinstatement.
- Entering into an agreement to represent a prospective client after receiving notice of suspension and before the suspension's effective date constitutes undertaking a new legal matter in violation of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26)(b).
- Counseling a client on legal matters during the period of suspension violates the court's suspension order.
- A suspended attorney violates the applicable disciplinary rules by failing to file the required affidavit within twenty days after notice of suspension.
- An additional forty-five-day suspension was warranted for undertaking a new legal matter after notice of suspension, practicing law while suspended, and failing timely to file the required affidavit.
Key quotations
“We find that the testimony and other evidence submitted clearly and convincingly establish that by entering into the agreement to represent the woman, the respondent "undertook a new legal matter" after he had received notice of his suspension and before the effective date of his suspension, in violation of Ad-mis.Disce.R 28(26)(b).” (at 453)
“IT IS, THERFORE, ORDERED that the current suspension from the practice of law of the respondent, Michael B. Hau-ghee, shall be continued for an additional period of forty-five (45) days, effective August 13, 2003, after which the respondent shall be automatically reinstated.” (at 454)
Factual background
After receiving notice of his impending suspension, Haughee entered into an agreement to represent a woman in a contemplated custody or paternity matter and counseled her regarding legal issues during the suspension period. The court found that his assistance to an executrix in an estate matter did not clearly and convincingly establish that he had undertaken a new legal matter. Haughee also failed to file the affidavit required of suspended attorneys within twenty days of notice of suspension, filing it approximately two months late.
Procedural history
Haughee had previously been suspended from practicing law. The Disciplinary Commission timely objected to his automatic reinstatement, and the court stayed reinstatement pending an evidentiary hearing. After the hearing, the court sustained the objections in part, found rule violations, and extended the suspension by forty-five days.