Case Title: In the Matter of: Douglas W. Patterson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 82S00-1111-DI-662

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT 
Pro se 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary 
Robert D. Shook, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 82S00-1111-DI-662 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DOUGLAS W. PATTERSON, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Wayne S. Trockman 
_________________________________ 
 
 
June 20, 2012 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We find that Respondent, Douglas W. Patterson, engaged in attorney misconduct by 
committing three counts of class D felony theft of client funds and by engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  For this misconduct, we find 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 "Verified 
Complaint for Disciplinary Action."   Respondent's 1989 admission to this state's bar subjects 
him to this Court's disciplinary jurisdiction.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.   
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Jun 20 2012, 10:59 am
 
 
2 
Background 
 
Prior relevant disciplinary actions against Respondent.  The Commission filed a verified 
complaint against Respondent on February 25, 2004, initiating Cause No. 82S00-0402-DI-90.   
In a per curiam opinion, this Court found that Respondent wrote unauthorized checks totaling 
$10,500 on the firm's trust account.  Respondent made false statements regarding the matter 
during the Commission's investigation and at the hearing.  The Court concluded that Respondent 
violated these Professional Rules of Conduct prohibiting the following misconduct: 
 
Rule 1.15(a):   Failure to hold property of clients properly in trust.   
Rule 8.4(b):   Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. 
Rule 8.4(c):   Engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation. 
 
The Court imposed a suspension of at least three years, which is still in effect.   See 
Matter of Patterson, 888 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 2008).  On April 30, 2009, this Court entered an order 
finding Respondent in contempt for practicing law while suspended and imposed a $500 fine.  
See Matter of Patterson, 907 N.E.2d 970 (Ind. 2009). 
 
On January 26, 2011, Respondent was convicted on a guilty plea to three counts of Theft, 
all class D felonies (the convictions that are the basis of the current action).  The Commission 
filed a "Notice of Guilty Finding and Request for Suspension" on February 21, 2011, initiating 
Cause No. 82S00-1102-DI-96.  The Court entered an order of interim suspension on April 28, 
2011, which is still in effect.  See Matter of Patterson, 945 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. 2011). 
 
The current action.  The Commission filed a "Verified Complaint for Disciplinary 
Action" against Respondent on November 14, 2011.  Based on Respondent's felony convictions 
described above, the Commission charged Respondent with violating these Professional Rules of 
Conduct prohibiting the following misconduct: 
 
Rule 8.4(b):   Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. 
 
 
3 
Rule 8.4(c):   Engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation. 
 
Respondent was served with the complaint and did not respond.  Accordingly, the 
hearing officer took the facts alleged in the complaint as true.  See Admis. Disc. R. 23(14)(c).   
 
The hearing officer found that Respondent was convicted on a guilty plea to three counts 
of Theft, all class D felonies.  The charges were based on exercising unauthorized control over 
funds in excess of $17,000 belonging to 24 clients or former clients.  The funds included prepaid 
attorney fees and filing fees.   Respondent was sentenced to three years on each count, with one 
year executed, to be served concurrently.     
 
Discussion 
 
Neither party filed a petition for review of the hearing officer's report.  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).  We concur in the hearing officer's findings of fact and conclude that Respondent 
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.  
 
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).    
 
As to discipline, we frequently look for guidance to the American Bar Association's 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (as amended in 1992) ("Standards").  The Standards 
provide: 
 
Disbarment  is generally  appropriate  when a lawyer  knowingly  converts client 
property and causes injury or potentially serious injury to a client. 
 
 
4 
 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in serious criminal 
conduct a necessary element of which includes . . . misappropriation, or theft . . . .   
 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in any other intentional 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously 
adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice. 
 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct 
that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional with the intent to obtain a benefit 
for the lawyer . . . and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client . . . . 
 
 
Standards 4.11, 5.11(a), 5.11(b), and 7.1.  We conclude that each of these Standards applies to 
the matter before us.  We therefore conclude that Respondent's conduct warrants disbarment.  
See Matter of Hill, 655 N.E.2d 343, 345 (Ind. 1995) (converting estate funds warranted 
disbarment).   
 
The Court already has imposed a three-year suspension on Respondent based in part on 
the conduct underlying the current case.  In addition, there are circumstances in this case that 
were not present in the prior case:  (1) the amount of client funds converted and the number of 
clients involved are now known to be greater than cited in the prior case; and (2) Respondent's 
acts have been adjudicated to constitute multiple felonies.  These considerations support the 
Court's decision that disbarment is warranted at this time. 
 
Conclusion 
 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) 
and 8.4(c) by committing three counts of class D felony theft of client funds and by engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.   
 
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).  
 
 
 
5 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.  The hearing officer 
appointed in this case is discharged. 
 
The Clerk of this Court is directed to give notice of this opinion to the hearing officer, to 
the parties or their respective attorneys, and to all other entities entitled to notice under 
Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d).  The Clerk is further directed to post this opinion to the 
Court's website, and Thomson Reuters is directed to publish a copy of this opinion in the bound 
volumes of this Court's decisions. 
 
All Justices concur.