Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court held that Marcus E. Ellison committed professional misconduct by neglecting a client’s appeal and making false statements to the client, the Court of Appeals, and the Disciplinary Commission. The Court suspended him from practicing law for at least 90 days without automatic reinstatement, effective January 31, 2018.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Respondent violated the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules by neglecting a client's appeal, failing to communicate with the client, and making false statements to the Court of Appeals and the Disciplinary Commission.
- What sanction was appropriate for the misconduct, including whether Respondent should be suspended for at least 90 days without automatic reinstatement.
Holdings
- Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(b), 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(a), and 8.4(c) by neglecting the appeal, failing to keep and inform the client, and engaging in repeated dishonesty.
- A pattern of dishonesty undertaken to conceal neglect, combined with failure to accept responsibility or show insight, warranted suspension from the practice of law for at least 90 days without automatic reinstatement.
Key quotations
“We find that Respondent, Marcus Ellison, committed attorney misconduct by neglecting an appeal and thereafter engaging in a pattern of dishonesty in an effort to cover up his neglect.” (at 1)
“For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than 90 days, without automatic reinstatement, effective January 31, 2018.” (at 4)
Factual background
Respondent represented a client in an appeal from the denial of her petition to expunge a misdemeanor theft conviction, although he had never handled an appeal. He failed to timely file the appellant's brief, falsely told the client that a brief had been filed, and submitted a defective motion and brief to the Court of Appeals. After the appeal was dismissed with prejudice, Respondent failed to inform the client or seek reinstatement and later gave multiple explanations to the Commission, at least two of which were knowingly false.
Procedural history
The Disciplinary Commission filed its complaint on April 4, 2017. Respondent did not respond, so the Commission moved for judgment on the complaint and the hearing officer treated the alleged facts as true. The Indiana Supreme Court adopted the uncontested factual findings, independently determined that professional misconduct occurred, and imposed an indefinite suspension of at least 90 days without automatic reinstatement.