In the Matter of Frederick H. Shull

741 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2001) · Supreme Court of Indiana · February 5, 2001 · No. No. 21S00-9906-DI-358

Summary

The Supreme Court of Indiana disciplined Frederick H. Shull for intentionally failing to attend seven scheduled criminal proceedings, failing to inform his client about the proceedings, and failing to respond to disciplinary inquiries. The court found violations of Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.4, 3.2, 8.1(b), and 8.4(d). It suspended Shull from practicing law for at least six months without automatic reinstatement, effective March 5, 2001.

Holdings

  1. Shull violated Professional Conduct Rule 1.4 by failing to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the case, failing to disclose the scheduled court appearances, and failing to explain the proceedings and consequences of nonappearance sufficiently to permit informed decisions.
  2. Shull violated Professional Conduct Rule 3.2 by intentionally and repeatedly failing, without excuse, to appear for scheduled court proceedings.
  3. Shull violated Professional Conduct Rule 8.1(b) by refusing to respond to the Disciplinary Commission's lawful demands for information.
  4. Shull violated Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d) through a pattern of obstreperous conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
  5. A suspension of at least six months without automatic reinstatement was appropriate for Shull's misconduct and aggravating circumstances.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Shull violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to inform his client about scheduled proceedings and the consequences of nonappearance.
  2. Whether Shull violated the professional obligations to expedite litigation and obey tribunal obligations by intentionally and repeatedly failing to appear at scheduled proceedings.
  3. Whether Shull violated the duty to respond to a lawful demand for information from the Disciplinary Commission.
  4. Whether Shull's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
  5. What disciplinary sanction was appropriate in light of the misconduct and aggravating circumstances.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (3)

  • Matter of Campbell, 702 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. 1998)(followed)
  • Matter of Mears, 723 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. 2000)(followed)
  • Matter of McCord, 722 N.E.2d 820 (Ind. 2000)(analogized)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…