In the Matter of David J. Colman

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court found that attorney David J. Colman committed professional misconduct by participating in preparation of a will benefiting himself or his son, representing an elderly client despite a personal conflict, commingling client funds, entering an improper condominium transaction with a client, and charging an unreasonable fee. The Court suspended Colman from practicing law for at least three years, effective July 1, 2008, with reinstatement subject to specified requirements. Two justices dissented from the sanction and would have imposed disbarment.

Holdings

1. A lawyer who actively participates in preparing a will for a non-relative that names the lawyer as primary beneficiary and the lawyer's son as contingent beneficiary violates Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(c).
2. A lawyer violates Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(b) by representing a client when the lawyer's personal interest in property the lawyer may inherit creates a concurrent conflict of interest, including when the lawyer initiates and advises the client regarding a guardianship and then serves as guardian.
3. A lawyer violates Professional Conduct Rule 1.15(a) and Admission and Discipline Rule 23(29)(a) by depositing client funds into a personal account and commingling those funds with the lawyer's own property.
4. A lawyer violates Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(a) by entering into a business transaction with a client on terms that are not fair and reasonable, are not fully and clearly disclosed, do not provide a reasonable opportunity to seek independent counsel, or lack the client's written consent.
5. A lawyer violates Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(a) by accepting property worth substantially more than the value of legal services rendered or to be rendered, particularly when the fee is based on speculative future services and is unreasonable under the circumstances.
6. For the aggregate misconduct, including conflicts involving a vulnerable client, improper handling of client funds, an improper business transaction, an unreasonable fee, multiple violations, prior discipline, and lack of remorse, a suspension of not less than three years is warranted, with reinstatement conditioned on compliance with the applicable reinstatement rules and proof of genuine remorse and understanding of professional ethical standards.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Colman actively participated in preparing a will for a non-relative that gave him or his son a substantial gift in violation of Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(c).
2. Whether Colman represented G.A. despite a concurrent conflict of interest arising from his personal interest in property he stood to inherit while serving as G.A.'s guardian, in violation of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(b).
3. Whether Colman violated the rules governing the segregation and trust-account handling of client funds by depositing M.M.'s money into a personal account.
4. Whether Colman's condominium transaction with M.M. violated Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(a) governing business transactions with clients.
5. Whether Colman charged an unreasonable fee in violation of Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(a).
6. What sanction was appropriate for the misconduct and disciplinary history.

Disposition

other