Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court found that a public defender committed professional misconduct by soliciting and accepting a private fee from a client, submitting a fee claim to the county, charging an unreasonable fee, and making false statements during the disciplinary investigation. The Court suspended the respondent for at least 60 days, conditioned reinstatement on satisfying applicable requirements, and assessed costs against the respondent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether respondent's conduct constituted violations of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct.
- What discipline should be imposed for the established attorney misconduct.
Holdings
- Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.4(b), 1.5(a), 8.1(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) by failing to provide required information, charging an unreasonable fee, making a false material statement in a disciplinary matter, engaging in dishonest or deceitful conduct, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for not less than sixty days, effective November 13, 2006, and was required to satisfy the reinstatement requirements before resuming practice; costs were assessed against him.
Key quotations
“For the misconduct found herein, this Court suspends respondent from the practice of law, effective November 13, 2006, for a period of not less than sixty (60) days, after which respondent may petition this Court for reinstatement pursuant to Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 28 § 4.” (854 N.E.2d at 348)
Factual background
In 1997, the Blackford Circuit Court appointed respondent as a public defender, and in 1998 appointed him to handle the client's appeal. While still at counsel table after the appellate appointment, respondent solicited and accepted $3,000 from the client before beginning the appeal, without informing the court. Respondent later submitted a claim for the appeal to the county, which ultimately paid him $3,628, and initially denied billing the county for pauper fees after receiving the private payment.
Procedural history
The Disciplinary Commission filed a Verified Complaint, and the Supreme Court appointed Judge Joel D. Roberts as hearing officer to receive evidence. After reviewing the hearing officer's report and the parties' memoranda on sanction, the Supreme Court found misconduct and imposed a suspension.