Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court approved a conditional agreement disciplining an attorney for failing to act diligently, failing to keep a client informed, delaying distribution of client funds, and mismanaging trust-account records and withdrawals. The court imposed a six-month suspension, stayed subject to at least two years of probation with certified-public-accountant trust-account monitoring, and assessed costs against the respondent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether respondent violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct and Indiana Admission and Discipline Rules through deficient diligence and client communication, delayed delivery of client funds, trust-account recordkeeping failures, commingling, and unauthorized withdrawals.
- Whether the stipulated Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline should be approved and the agreed six-month suspension stayed subject to probation.
Holdings
- The Court approved the parties' stipulation that respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.15(a), and 1.15(d), and Indiana Admission and Discipline Rules 23(29)(a)(3), 23(29)(a)(4), and 23(29)(a)(5).
- The Court approved a six-month suspension from the practice of law, stayed subject to completion of at least two years of probation, with certified-public-accountant trust-account monitoring and quarterly reports to the Disciplinary Commission.
Factual background
Respondent represented a client in a personal-injury matter and retained settlement proceeds in his trust account while pursuing underinsured-motorist claims and resolving Medicare's lien. He acknowledged insufficient diligence and communication and delayed delivering the client's share of the settlement until the client retained new counsel. From 2009 through 2015, respondent also failed to withdraw earned fees, failed to maintain individual client ledgers, made checks payable to cash, and made trust-account transfers without written authorization, although the account balance was always sufficient to cover client obligations.
Procedural history
The Disciplinary Commission and respondent stipulated to facts, rule violations, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and proposed discipline. The Indiana Supreme Court approved the agreement, suspended respondent from practicing law for six months with the suspension stayed subject to at least two years of probation, and assessed proceeding costs against respondent.