In re Campanella

83 N.E.3d 696 (Ind. 2017) · Indiana Supreme Court · August 29, 2017

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court found a suspended attorney in contempt for practicing law on behalf of a client during her suspension. The Court imposed a $500 fine and extended the minimum suspension period by one year, without automatic reinstatement.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam
Jurisdiction
Indiana
Decision date
August 29, 2017
Procedural posture
The Indiana Supreme Court considered the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission's verified motion for rule to show cause alleging that Respondent practiced law while suspended and violated the Court's suspension order. Respondent did not file a response after being served with the order to show cause.
Precedential value
Published opinion
Disposition
other

Topics

contemptsanctionsappellate procedureremedies

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplinecontempt

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Respondent violated the Indiana Supreme Court's suspension order by practicing law on behalf of a client while suspended.
  2. What sanctions were appropriate for Respondent's contempt.

Holdings

  1. Respondent practiced law in violation of the Court's suspension order and was therefore held in contempt.
  2. The Court may impose a monetary fine and extend an attorney's suspension for contempt; the Court fined Respondent $500 and extended her suspension to at least one year without automatic reinstatement.

Key quotations

We therefore find that Respondent has practiced law in violation of her suspension as asserted by the Commission. (697)

Factual background

While suspended from practicing law, Respondent filed a CCS entry form and notice of change of address on a client's behalf, appeared at a hearing, discussed the client's case with opposing counsel, and was instructed by the trial judge that she could not continue representing the client. Despite that instruction, Respondent later faxed a motion to continue, proposed order, and CCS entry form to the court and called the court to request a continuance. Respondent did not respond to the Supreme Court's order to show cause.

Procedural history

Respondent was suspended from practicing law for at least thirty days without automatic reinstatement, effective September 28, 2016. The Commission filed a verified motion in June 2017 alleging that Respondent represented a client while suspended, and the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause. After Respondent failed to respond, the Court found her in contempt, imposed a $500 fine, extended her suspension to at least one year without automatic reinstatement, and assessed costs.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…