Case Title: In the Matter of Scott J. Lennox

Citation: 

Docket Number: 19S-DI-628

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2020-05-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 19S-DI-628 
In the Matter of 
Scott J. Lennox, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: May 6, 2020 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer David J. Hensel 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
May 06 2020, 10:21 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-628 | May 6, 2020 
Page 2 of 5 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Scott Lennox, committed attorney 
misconduct by neglecting client matters, mismanaging his attorney trust 
accounts, converting client funds, and failing to cooperate with the 
disciplinary process. For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent 
should be disbarred. 
This matter is before the Court on the report of the hearing officer 
appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission’s “Disciplinary Complaint.” Respondent’s 1996 
admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court’s disciplinary 
jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. 
Procedural Background and Facts 
The Commission filed its disciplinary complaint against Respondent on 
November 26, 2019. Respondent was served but has not appeared or 
responded in these proceedings. Accordingly, the Commission filed a 
“Motion for Judgment on the Complaint,” and the hearing officer took the 
facts alleged in the complaint as true. 
No petition for review of the hearing officer’s report has been filed. 
When neither party challenges the findings of the hearing officer, “we 
accept and adopt those findings but reserve final judgment as to 
misconduct and sanction.” Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 1257, 1258 (Ind. 
2000). 
Respondent failed to maintain appropriate records for two trust 
accounts and made several unauthorized withdrawals of client funds, 
converting those funds for his personal use. Respondent also made several 
unauthorized withdrawals and converted client funds from a third trust 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-628 | May 6, 2020 
Page 3 of 5 
account. In April 2019, Respondent was charged with several felonies as a 
result of his misuse of client funds.1 
Respondent also wholly neglected three client matters, failed to 
adequately communicate with those clients, and converted funds 
belonging to those clients.  
Finally, Respondent failed to cooperate with the Commission’s 
investigations into his client neglect and financial mismanagement.2  
Discussion 
We concur in the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclude that 
Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 
prohibiting the following misconduct: 
1.3: Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. 
1.4(a)(3): Failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter. 
1.4(a)(4): Failing to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable 
requests for information. 
1.15(a): Failing to safeguard property of clients and third parties 
and failing to maintain and preserve complete records of client 
trust account funds. 
1.15(c): Failing to deposit into a client trust account legal fees paid 
in advance. 
 
1 Odyssey case records reflect that subsequent to issuance of the hearing officer’s report, 
Respondent pled guilty to six counts of theft, level 6 felonies, and two counts of fraud on a 
financial institution, level 5 felonies. See State v. Lennox, Case No. 43C01-1904-F5-291. 
2 Respondent currently is under an indefinite suspension from the practice of law for 
noncooperation. Matter of Lennox, 141 N.E.3d 391 (Ind. 2020). 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-628 | May 6, 2020 
Page 4 of 5 
1.16(d): Failing to protect a client’s interests upon termination of 
representation. 
8.1(b):  Knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for 
information from a disciplinary authority. 
8.4(a): Knowingly violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. 
8.4(b): Committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. 
8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation. 
In addition, we conclude that Respondent violated the following 
Indiana Admission and Discipline Rules: 
23(29)(a)(2)–(4) (2016): Failing to create, maintain, and preserve 
proper records for trust account activities. 
23(29)(a)(5) (2016): Making withdrawals from a trust account 
without written withdrawal authorization stating the amount and 
purpose of the withdrawal and the payee. 
23(29)(a) (2017): Failing to preserve complete records for an 
attorney trust account. 
23(29)(b) (2017): Inability to produce financial records by electronic, 
photographic, computer, or other media capable of being reduced 
to printed format. 
23(29)(c)(5) (2017): Making cash disbursements from a trust 
account. 
“Misappropriation of client funds is a grave transgression. It 
demonstrates a conscious desire to accomplish an unlawful act, denotes a 
lack of virtually all personal characteristics we deem important to law 
practice, threatens to bring significant misfortune on the unsuspecting 
client and severely impugns the integrity of the profession.” Matter of Hill, 
655 N.E.2d 343, 345 (Ind. 1995). We have disbarred attorneys who have 
committed similar misconduct. See, e.g., Matter of Schuyler, 97 N.E.3d 618 
(Ind. 2018); Matter of Pierce, 80 N.E.3d 888 (Ind. 2017); Matter of James, 70 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-628 | May 6, 2020 
Page 5 of 5 
N.E.3d 346 (Ind. 2017). The nature of Respondent’s misconduct, coupled 
with his multiple instances of noncooperation and his failure to participate 
in these proceedings, persuade us that disbarment is the appropriate 
sanction here as well. 
Conclusion 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated the Indiana Rules of 
Professional Conduct and Admission and Discipline Rules as set forth 
above. Respondent already is under separate orders of suspension for 
noncooperation and for continuing legal education noncompliance. For 
Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court disbars Respondent 
from the practice of law in this state effective immediately. Respondent 
shall fulfill all the duties of a disbarred attorney under Admission and 
Discipline Rule 23(26). The costs of the proceeding are assessed against 
Respondent, and the hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged 
with the Court’s appreciation. 
All Justices concur. 
N O  A P P EA RA N CE FO R  T H E  RE SP O N D EN T  
 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  I ND I A NA SU P RE ME CO U R T 
D I SC I PL I NA R Y C OMM ISS I O N 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Director 
Julie E. Bennett, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana