Case ID: ne3d_88/html/1067-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Loretta H. Rush, Chief Justice of Indiana", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the MATTER OF: Julia N. COMPTON, Respondent
    Supreme Court Case No. 41S00-1710-DI-632
    Supreme Court of Indiana.
    Filed January 18, 2018
   Published Order Approving Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline

Loretta H. Rush, Chief Justice of Indiana

Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(12. l)(b), the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” stipulating agreed facts and proposed discipline as summarized below.

Stipulated Facts: Respondent was employed with the Juvenile Division of the Marion Superior Court. On October 18, 2016, Respondent was scheduled to conduct a CHINS case mediation at 1:30 p.m. Respondent failed to appear on time and the other attorneys involved in the mediation were unable to reach her. When Respondent finally arrived at the mediation at 2:00 p.m., she was in an intoxicated state. Respondent attempted to participate in that mediation and a subsequent mediation later that day but was unable to assist due to her intoxicated state. The presiding judge of the juvenile court had an officer administer a portable breath test to Respondent, which showed a BAC of 0.23. Respondent resigned her employment with the juvenile court as a result of this incident.

On December 29, 2016, shortly after 12:30 p.m., Respondent was arrested in Johnson County for operating a vehicle while intoxicated (“OWI”). Respondent currently is awaiting trial on charges that include, among other things, both a felony OWI count and a habitual offender count that are predicated in part on prior OWI convictions.

Respondent has prior discipline for similar misconduct. See Matter of Compton, 988 N.E.2d 262 (Ind. 2013).

Violations: The parties agree that Respondent violated Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b), which prohibits committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer, and Rule 8.4(d), which prohibits engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Discipline: The parties propose the appropriate discipline is a suspension of one year without automatic reinstatement. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, now approves the agreed discipline.

For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than one year, without automatic reinstatement, beginning on the date of this order. Respondent already is under an order of suspension for failing to fulfill her continuing legal education requirements. At the conclusion of the minimum period of suspension, Respondent may petition this Court for reinstatement to the practice of law in this state, provided Respondent pays the costs of this proceeding, fulfills the duties of a suspended attorney, cures the causes of all suspensions then in effect, and satisfies the requirements for reinstatement of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18). Reinstatement is discretionary and requires clear and convincing evidence of the attorney’s remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law. See Admis. Disc. R. 23(18)(b).

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.

Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, on 1/18/2018.

All Justices concur.