Case Title: In the Matter of Joseph Patrick Hudspeth

Citation: 

Docket Number: 41S00-1612-DI-659

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2018-04-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 41S00-1612-DI-659 
In the Matter of 
Joseph Patrick Hudspeth, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: April 25, 2018 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Roger L. Duvall 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Apr 25 2018, 1:44 pm
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 41S00-1612-DI-659 | April 25, 2018 
Page 2 of 6 
Per Curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Joseph Patrick Hudspeth, engaged in 
attorney misconduct by neglecting clients’ cases, making dishonest 
statements to current and prospective clients, and failing to timely 
respond to the Commission’s demand for information. For this 
misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be suspended for at 
least eighteen months without automatic reinstatement. 
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,” 
and on the post-hearing briefing by the parties. Respondent’s 2008 
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 four-count “Verified Complaint for 
Disciplinary Action” against Respondent on December 16, 2016, and we 
appointed a hearing officer. Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing 
officer issued his report on January 4, 2018, finding Respondent 
committed violations as charged. 
Count 1. Respondent was hired in October 2009 by “Clients 1” to 
pursue claims for disability and/or damages for their daughter, who was 
injured in a golf cart accident during a high school event. In September 
2010 Respondent filed suit against “School” and “Golf Club.” Shortly 
thereafter, School sought discovery (including requests for admission), 
Golf Club filed for bankruptcy protection, and the court stayed the lawsuit 
temporarily pending the bankruptcy. Respondent took no action in the 
bankruptcy to see if the trustee would pursue the claim of Clients 1. Golf 
Club was granted a discharge in the bankruptcy case in January 2012, after 
which School renewed its discovery requests. Respondent failed to 
respond to these requests and to subsequent motions to compel and to 
deem admissions made, prompting School to file a motion to dismiss.  
Respondent submitted an untimely response and failed to appear at a 
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 41S00-1612-DI-659 | April 25, 2018 
Page 3 of 6 
hearing on the motion to dismiss, which was reset. Meanwhile, Clients 1 
lost all contact with Respondent and were unable to reach him, and they 
were unaware their case was facing dismissal. Respondent did not appear 
at the reset dismissal hearing, and the court granted the School’s motion 
to dismiss. Respondent did not notify Clients 1 of the dismissal. 
During these disciplinary proceedings Respondent produced a letter 
addressed to Clients 1 and dated one day after the trial court’s dismissal 
of the case, in which Respondent deceptively wrote that the case had been 
dismissed because Clients 1 could not establish 100% liability against 
School. The hearing officer found that this letter was not sent to Clients 1 
but instead was created by Respondent during the disciplinary process.   
Count 2. In 2010 Respondent filed in federal court on behalf of “Client 
2” a petition for judicial review of an administrative denial of Client 2’s 
social security disability claim. However, Respondent thereafter neglected 
the case, resulting in a dismissal of the case in August 2012. Respondent 
did not inform Client 2 of the dismissal. When asked by Client 2 in 
September 2013 about the status of the case, Respondent falsely told her 
suit was pending and it would take months to get a result. Client 2 later 
called the court directly and learned her case had been dismissed. 
Count 3. Respondent failed to timely respond to the Commission’s 
demands for information regarding a grievance filed by Clients 1, leading 
to the initiation of show cause proceedings in this Court. Those 
proceedings eventually were dismissed after Respondent belatedly 
complied. 
Count 4. Two websites maintained by Respondent falsely represented 
his experience, specialization, and other aspects of his legal practice. More 
specifically, Respondent falsely claimed that “he had 35 years of 
experience in the [social security] industry,” falsely used the plural 
“attorneys” to describe the members of his firm even though Respondent 
was a solo practitioner, and falsely claimed to be a specialist in areas of the 
law in which he held no certification of specialty (and, in most instances, 
had little or no experience). 
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 41S00-1612-DI-659 | April 25, 2018 
Page 4 of 6 
Discussion 
The Commission alleged, and the hearing officer concluded, that 
Respondent violated the following Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct: 
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. 
1.4(b): Failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary 
to permit a client to make informed decisions. 
7.1: Making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or 
the lawyer’s services.  
7.4: Making a statement of specialization when not authorized. 
8.1(b): Failing to respond in a timely manner to the Commission’s 
demands for information.   
8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation. 
 
Respondent does not challenge any of the hearing officer’s findings or 
conclusions with respect to these charged rule violations, and we likewise 
conclude that Respondent violated the rules as charged. 
Both parties have filed briefs in this Court addressing the issue of an 
appropriate sanction. Respondent argues that little or no “actual harm” 
resulted from his misconduct. (Pet. for Review of Sanctions at 10). The 
hearing officer did observe “that a successful resolution of claims being 
pursued by [Clients 1] and [Client 2] would have been difficult” (HO’s 
Report at 23), but stretching this observation into a contention that 
Respondent’s misconduct caused no harm is a bridge too far. 
Respondent’s neglect deprived Clients 1 and Client 2 of the opportunity to 
be heard on their claims, and his dishonesty and lack of adequate 
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 41S00-1612-DI-659 | April 25, 2018 
Page 5 of 6 
communication deprived his clients of the professional services to which 
they were entitled and the opportunity to make informed decisions about 
their cases. Respondent’s neglect in Count 3 necessitated the expenditure 
of additional resources by the Commission and the coercive intervention 
of this Court. And finally, Respondent’s false advertising in Count 4 
harmed all prospective clients who were misled into believing that 
Respondent would bring levels of experience and competence to bear in 
their cases that greatly exceeded what Respondent actually could provide.  
For similar reasons we cannot subscribe to Respondent’s reductive 
characterization of his misconduct as “avoidance.” (Pet. for Review of 
Sanctions at 10). This argument simply fails to account for Respondent’s 
affirmative, willful, and repeated acts of dishonesty to his clients and to 
the public. 
The parties’ respective positions on sanction differ largely on the 
question of whether Respondent should be suspended with or without 
automatic reinstatement. Respondent’s pattern of dishonesty, which 
Respondent employed largely to mask his own professional shortcomings, 
compels us to conclude that a significant period of suspension is 
warranted and that Respondent must be required to undergo the 
reinstatement process before resuming the practice of law.  
Conclusion 
For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends 
Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of at least 
eighteen months, without automatic reinstatement, effective June 6, 2018. 
Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under 
Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). 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). 
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 41S00-1612-DI-659 | April 25, 2018 
Page 6 of 6 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. The 
hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged. 
All Justices concur. 
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT 
Jennifer M. Lukemeyer 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
ATTORNEYS FOR INDIANA SUPREME COURT 
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Director 
Seth T. Pruden, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana