Case Title: In ther Matter of Donald Edward James

Citation: 

Docket Number: 02S00-1607-DI-389

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2017-03-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENT  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Director 
David E. Griffith, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 02S00-1607-DI-389 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DONALD E. JAMES, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer John D. Ulmer 
_________________________________ 
 
 
March 7, 2017 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We find that Respondent, Donald James, committed attorney misconduct by 
mismanaging his trust account, 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 “Verified 
Complaint for Disciplinary Action.”  Respondent’s 1985 admission to this state’s bar subjects 
him to this Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.   
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Mar 07 2017, 10:02 am
 
 
Procedural Background and Facts 
 
The Commission filed a “Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action” against 
Respondent on July 20, 2016.  After service by certified mail at the two Fort Wayne addresses 
listed for Respondent on the Roll of Attorneys was unsuccessful, constructive service was made 
upon the Clerk as Respondent’s agent pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(12)(h) 
(2016).  Respondent has not appeared or responded in these proceedings.  Accordingly, the 
Commission filed an “Application for Judgment on the Complaint,” and the hearing officer took 
the facts alleged in the verified 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).   
 
During 2015 Respondent significantly overdrew his attorney trust account on three 
occasions, regularly commingled personal funds with client funds, made unauthorized cash and 
check withdrawals from the trust account for his own personal purposes, and failed to maintain 
adequate trust account records.  Respondent also invaded client funds, which resulted in the 
overdrafts.  Respondent largely failed to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation and has 
failed to participate in these disciplinary proceedings. 
 
The hearing officer cited as aggravating factors Respondent’s dishonest and selfish 
motive, his pattern of misconduct comprising multiple offenses, the criminal nature of some of 
his misconduct, his deceptive practices during the Commission’s investigation, and his refusal to 
acknowledge the wrongfulness of his actions.  The hearing officer recommended that 
Respondent be disbarred. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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: 
 
1.15(a):  Failing to create or maintain complete records of client trust account funds, and 
commingling client and attorney funds.  
 
8.1(b):  Failing to respond in a timely manner to the Commission’s demands for 
information. 
 
8.4(b):  Committing a criminal act (conversion) that reflects 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:1 
 
23(29)(a)(2):  Failing to create or preserve trust account records for at least five years 
after disposition of matters.  
 
23(29)(a)(3):  Failing to create, maintain, or retain accurate client ledgers for trust 
accounts. 
 
23(29)(a)(4):  Commingling client funds with other funds of the attorney and failing to 
create or retain sufficiently detailed records.2   
 
 
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).  This analysis informed 
                                                 
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. 
 
2 The verified complaint and the hearing officer’s report both cite Rule 23(29)(a)(5), but the particular 
conduct cited as a basis for the violation is encompassed within Rule 23(29)(a)(4).  This discrepancy does 
not affect our analysis, particularly since the undisputed facts of this case reflect violations of both rules. 
 
 
the hearing officer’s recommendation that Respondent be disbarred and leads us to conclude the 
same.  “Few other acts of misconduct impugn the integrity of the Bar or place the public more at 
risk than the misuse of client funds.”  Matter of Frosch, 643 N.E.2d 902, 904 (Ind. 1994).  
Respondent has not participated in these proceedings or filed a brief urging a different sanction, 
and we have disbarred other attorneys who have demonstrated similar unfitness to be entrusted 
with the responsibilities that accompany a license to practice law in this state.  See id.; see also 
Matter of Johnson, 53 N.E.3d 1177 (Ind. 2016); Matter of Ouellette, 37 N.E.3d 490 (Ind. 2015); 
Matter of Hill, 655 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. 1995).   
 
 
Conclusion 
 
Respondent already is under suspension in two other cases for failure to cooperate with 
the Commission’s investigations.  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 
this proceeding are assessed against Respondent, and the hearing officer appointed in this case is 
discharged. 
 
All Justices concur.