In re Mullins

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline on an attorney who had been disciplined by the Supreme Court of Kentucky. The Court suspended the respondent indefinitely from practicing law in Indiana, effective October 18, 2013, with reinstatement subject to specified conditions.

Holdings

1. Reciprocal discipline should be imposed because no reason was shown under Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(28)(c) why reciprocal discipline should not issue.
2. Respondent is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Indiana, with a minimum active suspension of thirty days and eligibility to seek reinstatement under Rule 23(28)(e) if the specified conditions are satisfied.
3. The effective date of the suspension should be delayed for approximately six weeks, until October 18, 2013, rather than the requested 120 days.
4. Respondent must notify clients of the suspension because he did not state a compelling reason for relief from that obligation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed in Indiana after the Supreme Court of Kentucky disciplined Respondent.
2. Whether Respondent should receive a delayed effective date for the Indiana suspension.
3. Whether Respondent should be excused from notifying clients of the Indiana suspension.

Disposition

other