Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court approved a conditional agreement disciplining William Levy for preparing a will that gave substantial gifts to himself and his wife, who were not related to the testator, in violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(c). The court imposed a 60-day suspension with automatic reinstatement and assessed proceeding costs against Levy.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the stipulated facts established that respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(c) by preparing a testamentary instrument for a non-relative that gave a substantial gift to the respondent or a person related to him.
- Whether a sixty-day suspension with automatic reinstatement was the appropriate discipline for the stipulated misconduct.
Holdings
- Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(c) by preparing a will for a non-relative that provided substantial gifts to respondent and his wife.
- The appropriate sanction was a sixty-day suspension from the practice of law with automatic reinstatement subject to the conditions of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4)(c).
Key quotations
“The Court, having considered the submission of the parties, now APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline.” (582)
Factual background
Respondent drafted a will for M.H., a non-relative, that gave valuable property to both respondent and his wife and appointed respondent as personal representative. After M.H.'s death, her nephew challenged the provisions, and the probate court removed respondent as personal representative and invalidated the bequests. Neither respondent nor his wife ultimately benefited from the provisions, but respondent had previously received a thirty-day suspension from practicing law.
Procedural history
The respondent drafted a will for M.H. that made substantial gifts to the respondent and his wife and appointed the respondent as personal representative. After M.H.'s death, the provisions were challenged, and the probate court removed the respondent as personal representative and invalidated the bequests. The disciplinary parties stipulated to the facts, a violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(c), and a proposed sixty-day suspension, which the Indiana Supreme Court approved.