In re Geheb

124 N.E.3d 594 (Ind. 2019) · Indiana Supreme Court · June 28, 2019

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court approved an agreed six-month suspension without automatic reinstatement for an attorney who violated trust-account, recordkeeping, cooperation, and honesty-related professional conduct rules. The suspension was effective immediately, and reinstatement was conditioned on satisfying specified disciplinary and continuing-duty requirements.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Indiana
Decision date
June 28, 2019
Procedural posture
The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed and approved the parties' Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline under Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(12.1)(b).
Precedential value
Published disciplinary order
Disposition
approved

Topics

administrative law

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplineprofessional responsibility

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Court should approve the parties' conditional agreement for discipline.
  2. What discipline should be imposed for Respondent's violations of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct and Admission and Discipline Rules.

Holdings

  1. The Court approved the parties' agreed discipline after considering their submissions.
  2. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for a period of not less than six months, without automatic reinstatement, effective immediately.
  3. After the minimum suspension period, reinstatement remains discretionary and requires clear and convincing evidence of remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law, along with satisfaction of the applicable reinstatement requirements.

Key quotations

For Respondent's professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than six months, without automatic reinstatement, effective immediately. (595)
Reinstatement is discretionary and requires clear and convincing evidence of the attorney's remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law. (595)

Factual background

From 2016 through 2018, Respondent mismanaged his attorney trust account by failing to maintain adequate records, overdrawing the account, commingling client and attorney funds, and converting client funds for personal use. Respondent also failed to timely and fully cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission's investigation. The parties cited prior discipline, a pattern of misconduct, selfish motive, and substantial legal experience as aggravating factors, and the remoteness of prior discipline and Respondent's physical and mental health issues as mitigating factors.

Procedural history

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent submitted an agreed statement of facts and proposed discipline. The Court approved the agreement, imposed a suspension of not less than six months without automatic reinstatement, and discharged the hearing officer.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…