Case ID: ne3d_53/html/1181-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Jeannette M. CONRAD, Respondent.
    No. 98S00-1512-DI-695.
    Supreme Court of Indiana.
    May 18, 2016.
   The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a “Verified Notice of Foreign Discipline and Petition for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause,” advising that Respondent was disciplined by the State of Illinois and requesting, pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(28), that reciprocal discipline be imposed in this state. On December 15, 2015, this Court issued an “Order to Show Cause,” to which Respondent has not responded.

On September 21, 2015, the Supreme Court of Illinois found Respondent’s conduct violated that jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct. For this misconduct, the Supreme Court of Illinois suspended Respondent for six months and until further order of that Court.

The Court finds that there has been no showing, pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(28)(c), of any reason why reciprocal discipline should not be issued in this state.

Being duly advised, the Court orders Respondent suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in this state as of the date of this order. Respondent is already under suspension for noncompliance with this state’s continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements. Respondent is ordered to fulfill the continuing duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.

If Respondent is granted reinstatement in Illinois, Respondent may file a “Motion for Reinstatement” pursuant to and in full compliance with Admission and Discipline Rule 23(28)(e), provided there is no other suspension order in effect at the time, including Respondent’s current CLE noncompliance suspension order.

All Justices concur.