In the Matter of Merrill "Scooter" Moores

Summary

The Supreme Court of Indiana disciplined an attorney for representing clients with conflicting interests, entering into an unreasonable business transaction with them, failing to explain material matters, and failing to expedite litigation. The court imposed a 30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement and assessed costs against the respondent.

Holdings

1. Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(b) by simultaneously representing J.R. and M.D. when their interests were materially conflicting.
2. Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(a) by entering into an unreasonable business transaction with his clients without giving them a reasonable opportunity to seek independent counsel.
3. Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.2(a) and 1.4(b) by failing to consult with his clients about the means of pursuing the representation and failing to explain the matter sufficiently to permit informed decisions.
4. Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 3.2 by deliberately delaying the foreclosure proceeding and failing to appear at the summary-judgment hearing merely to obstruct the proceeding and pursue a later delay strategy.
5. A thirty-day suspension from the practice of law, effective November 13, 2006, with reinstatement thereafter under Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23 § 4(c), was the appropriate sanction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether respondent represented clients with materially conflicting interests in violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(b).
2. Whether respondent entered into an unreasonable business transaction with clients without providing a reasonable opportunity to obtain independent counsel, in violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(a).
3. Whether respondent failed to consult with and adequately inform his clients about the means and status of the representation, in violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.2(a) and 1.4(b).
4. Whether respondent's deliberate delay of the foreclosure proceeding and failure to appear at the summary-judgment hearing violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 3.2.
5. What disciplinary sanction was appropriate for respondent's misconduct.

Disposition

other