Case Title: In the Matter of Michael Jeffries

Citation: 

Docket Number: 18S-DI-94

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2018-08-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-00094 
In the Matter of 
Michael Jeffries 
Respondent. 
 
Decided: August 21, 2018 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Peter C. King 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Aug 21 2018, 3:14 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-00094 | August 21, 2018 
Page 2 of 9 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Michael Jeffries, committed attorney 
misconduct by neglecting clients’ cases, maintaining two websites with 
misleading information, mismanaging his trust account, making false 
statements to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, and 
failing to cooperate in the disciplinary process. For this misconduct, we 
conclude that Respondent should be suspended for at least three years 
without automatic reinstatement.   
The matter is now before us on the report of the hearing officer 
appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the Commission’s verified 
disciplinary complaint. Respondent’s 2000 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 a “Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action” 
against Respondent on February 14, 2018. Respondent was served with 
the complaint but has not appeared, responded, or otherwise participated 
in these proceedings. Accordingly, the Commission filed a “Motion for 
Judgment on the Complaint,” and the hearing officer took the facts alleged 
in the disciplinary 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).    
Count 1. On June 30, 2014, Respondent initiated a lawsuit on behalf of 
“Client 1,” alleging the defendants made false accusations that caused 
Client 1 to be terminated from his employment. Respondent failed to 
move the case forward, resulting in the court dismissing the case under 
Trial Rule 41(E). The court reinstated the case upon Respondent’s request 
for relief.   
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-00094 | August 21, 2018 
Page 3 of 9 
Thereafter, Respondent failed to file witness and exhibit lists. The court 
granted the defendants’ motion to exclude Client 1 from presenting 
witnesses and evidence. Based on this order, the defendants moved to 
dismiss the lawsuit. Respondent then filed a motion to dismiss the case 
voluntarily. The court dismissed the case, but reinstated it the next day on 
Client 1’s motion, which alleged he had been unable to reach Respondent 
and that Respondent had dismissed the case without Client 1’s 
knowledge.     
At the pretrial conference following reinstatement of the case, 
Respondent claimed that from the outset Client 1 had agreed to dismiss 
the case if Respondent determined the defendants had no means to pay 
any damages. However, Respondent never informed Client 1 of the 
defendants’ financial status or Respondent’s intent to dismiss the case.  
Respondent told the court he was unaware of the order excluding 
witnesses and exhibits. After giving the parties an opportunity to present 
argument on whether Client 1 could prosecute his case given his inability 
to present evidence, the court dismissed the case.   
Respondent paid Client 1 $3,000 in exchange for Client 1’s agreement 
not to file a lawsuit or disciplinary action against Respondent. Respondent 
did not inform Client 1 in writing of his right to seek independent counsel 
to determine whether the $3,000 transaction was in Client 1’s best interest.    
Count 2.  On August 5, 2015, “Clients 2,” “Husband” and “Wife,” 
paid Respondent a $1,000 retainer to pursue a breach of contract claim 
against the previous owner of their home. Respondent failed to provide 
Clients 2 with updates, and Wife’s attempts to contact Respondent were 
often unsuccessful.   
In May 2016, Respondent informed Clients 2 that the $1,000 retainer 
had been exhausted and there was an outstanding balance. He also 
requested an additional $700 retainer for future work, which Clients 2 
paid.   
In September 2016, Respondent represented that he would e-file a 
complaint. His legal assistant later advised Clients 2 that the office had 
computer problems and if they paid a filing fee a complaint could be filed 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-00094 | August 21, 2018 
Page 4 of 9 
“manually.” (HO’s Report at 9.) Wife dropped the filing fee off at 
Respondent’s office. However, the clerk did not accept the complaint for 
filing because Respondent’s trust account had insufficient funds to cover 
the filing fee. The legal assistant next told Wife that she and Husband 
needed to come into the office to sign the lawsuit so it could be e-filed. 
The legal assistant set up four appointments for Clients 2 to meet with 
Respondent, but Respondent failed to attend any of the meetings. 
In October 2016, Respondent’s legal assistant told Wife that the lawsuit 
had not been filed and they should hire another attorney. Wife requested 
a copy of their file. The legal assistant promised to have it ready. Wife 
went to the office and was reviewing her file when Respondent arrived, 
grabbed the papers from Wife’s hand, and told her that he would mail her 
the file.   
On October 25, 2016, by email, Clients 2 fired Respondent and 
requested a full refund of $2,580. That afternoon, Respondent replied by 
email that he would send Wife a copy of their file within ten days and 
would review the time he spent on the file regarding her refund request.  
That evening, Respondent sent Wife a second email stating ([sic] 
throughout): 
My contract allows me 10 business days to return your file and 
bill.  Iam glad I returned to my office as you were taking 
advantage of my new secretary. 
Good luck in your endouver.  BE AVISED THAT THIS EMAIL 
NOTICE:  DO NOT RETURN TO MY OFFICE-TREASPASS-
DON’T CALL OR EMAIL MY OFFICE HARASSSMENT AND 
IF I FIND SLANDER OR LIBEL I WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE 
ACTION!  That includes you your husband or any releative.  
YOU ARE ON NOTICE!! 
(HO’s Report at 11.) 
Clients 2 never received their complete file or the return of any 
unearned fees. Respondent contended he was generous in not charging 
Clients 2 for their numerous calls to his legal assistant. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-00094 | August 21, 2018 
Page 5 of 9 
Count 3.  Respondent owned two websites on which he advertised 
that his firm was composed of multiple lawyers, which was not true.  
Respondent was a solo practitioner. He admitted to the Commission that 
his websites were in error and claimed his web designer had locked him 
out of the sites, preventing him from making changes. This was untrue. 
Respondent had the capacity to modify the websites at all times. He also 
informed the Commission he had deactivated both websites, but both 
remained active.   
On July 31, 2017, the Commission sent Respondent a subpoena duces 
tecum requesting a copy of the files for Client 1 and Clients 2. After 
Respondent failed to respond, the Commission filed a Petition for Rule to 
Show Cause. We ordered Respondent to respond to the subpoena and the 
Rule to Show Cause petition. Respondent replied that he intended to 
comply with the subpoena but needed more time to verify that the files he 
previously sent to the Commission were complete. Respondent claimed he 
had sent the Commission a letter by certified mail on August 14, 2017, 
tracking number 7017 0530 0000 3528 7815, requesting a thirty-day 
extension. He did not include a green card that would indicate the 
delivery of certified mail. The tracking number Respondent provided does 
not exist in the United States Postal Service system. When the Commission 
sought to have Respondent prove the veracity of his statements, he never 
responded.   
Count 4.  Respondent has mismanaged his trust account. Checks for 
$8,269.28 and $500 were presented against insufficient funds on, 
respectively, December 16, 2013, and May 10, 2016.   
Respondent used Square Inc. to allow clients to pay by credit card. On 
July 25, 2016, a $1,454.85 automated clearing house debit from Square, Inc. 
was presented against insufficient funds. Respondent admitted to having 
multiple issues with Square Inc. His continued use of Square Inc. failed to 
safeguard client funds in the trust account.   
On September 9, 2016, the Commission requested from Respondent a 
schedule of client and non-client funds in his trust account, trust account 
journals of all receipts and disbursements, client ledgers, and periodic 
monthly statements. In response, Respondent claimed the motherboard on 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-00094 | August 21, 2018 
Page 6 of 9 
his computer “went out,” his “billing software was lost,” and without his 
“billing software records, the detailed accounting that was required of 
[him] was not possible.” (HO’s Report at 16.)  
 The Commission subpoenaed Respondent’s trust account records from 
the bank. From 2013 through 2016, Respondent commingled either 
personal or business funds with the client funds in his trust account. On 
multiple occasions he withdrew funds from his trust account using online 
or electronic transfers. In June 2016, he made five improper online or 
electronic transfers from his trust account to his personal or business 
checking account. In both July and August 2016, Respondent made at least 
one online or electronic withdrawal from his trust account and placed the 
funds in his business or personal checking account. These transfers from 
the Respondent’s trust account were neither wire transfers nor checks 
made payable to named payees and none were based on written 
withdrawal authorizations.    
Discussion and Discipline 
We concur in the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclude 
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. 
1.8(a)(2):  Entering into a business transaction with a client unless the 
client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a 
reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel 
on the transaction. 
1.15(a):  Commingling client and attorney funds and failing to safeguard 
property of a client.   
3.2:   Failing to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of a client.    
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-00094 | August 21, 2018 
Page 7 of 9 
7.1:  Making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or 
the lawyer's services. 
8.1(b):  Failing to respond in a timely manner to the Commission’s legal 
demand for information.  
8.4(c):  Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation. 
In addition, we conclude the Respondent violated the following 
Indiana Admission and Discipline Rules:1 
23(29)(a)(2):  Failing to maintain and preserve a clear record of the date, 
amount, source, and explanation for funds held in trust. 
23(29)(a)(5):  Making withdrawals from a trust account without written 
withdrawal authorization stating the amount and purpose of the 
withdrawal and the payee.  
The hearing officer cited as aggravating factors Respondent’s selfish 
motive, pattern of misconduct, refusal to cooperate with the Commission, 
deceptive practices during the disciplinary proceedings, and failure to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. In mitigation, the 
hearing officer found Respondent has no prior discipline, with the 
exception of his current suspension for lack of cooperation related to this 
disciplinary action. The hearing officer recommended that Respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for three years.   
Our analysis of appropriate discipline entails consideration of the 
nature of the misconduct, the duties violated by the respondent, any 
resulting or potential harm, the respondent’s state of mind, our duty to 
preserve the integrity of the profession, the risk to the public should we 
allow the respondent to continue in practice, and matters in mitigation 
and aggravation. See Matter of Newman, 958 N.E.2d 792, 800 (Ind. 2011). 
                                                 
1 Admission and Discipline Rule 23 was amended effective January 1, 2017. The citations 
herein are to the version of Rule 23(29) in effect at the time of Respondent’s misconduct. 
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-00094 | August 21, 2018 
Page 8 of 9 
Respondent’s dishonesty and neglect of clients’ cases are troubling. He 
failed both to keep clients informed and to advance their cases. He 
maintained websites with misleading information. He had multiple 
violations relating to his trust account. He fabricated a story that he sent a 
certified letter to the Commission, falsely represented he was locked out 
of his websites, and failed to cooperate in the Commission’s investigation. 
He has not accepted responsibility for his misconduct and elected not to 
participate in these proceedings.      
Misconduct of a similar nature has resulted in a lengthy suspension or 
disbarment. See Matter of Pierce, 80 N.E.3d 888 (Ind. 2017); Matter of 
Denney, 983 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. 2013); Matter of Powell, 893 N.E.2d 729 (Ind. 
2008). The Commission has not sought disbarment in this case. The 
hearing officer recommended that Respondent be suspended for at least 
three years. We agree with the hearing officer’s recommendation. After 
the suspension period, Respondent may be reinstated only after proving 
by clear and convincing evidence his remorse, understanding of the 
standards imposed on members of the bar, and fitness to practice law. See 
Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(b). 
Conclusion 
Respondent already is under an order of suspension for failure to 
cooperate with the Commission’s investigation into his misconduct in this 
case. For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends 
Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less 
than three years, without automatic reinstatement, effective from the date 
of this opinion. 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, and satisfies the requirements 
for reinstatement of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18).  
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. The 
hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged. 
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-00094 | August 21, 2018 
Page 9 of 9 
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 
Aaron Johnson, Staff Attorney 
Rachel B. Gallagher, Staff Attorney