Case Title: In the Matter of Tia R. Brewer

Citation: 

Docket Number: 18S-DI-299

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2018-11-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-299 
In the Matter of  
Tia R. Brewer, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: November 16, 2018 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Emily C. Guenin-Hodson 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush, Justice David, Justice Massa, and Justice Slaughter concur. 
Justice Goff did not participate. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Nov 16 2018, 10:12 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-299 | November 16, 2018 
Page 2 of 6 
Per Curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Tia R. Brewer, committed attorney 
misconduct by, among other things, neglecting clients’ cases, failing to 
appear at show cause hearings, failing to withdraw from cases when her 
abuse of cocaine rendered her unable to assist her clients, committing a 
crime that reflects adversely on her fitness as a lawyer, and failing to 
cooperate with the disciplinary process. For this misconduct, we conclude 
that Respondent should be suspended for at least three years without 
automatic reinstatement. 
The matter is before us on the report of the hearing officer appointed by 
this Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary 
Commission’s verified disciplinary complaint. Respondent’s 2004 
admission to this state’s bar subjects her 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 May 30, 2018. After service by certified mail at  
Respondent’s address was unsuccessful, constructive service was made 
upon the Clerk as Respondent's agent pursuant to Admission and 
Discipline Rule 23(23.1)(c). Respondent 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 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).    
  Counts 1 through 11. Respondent was hired by eleven separate 
clients to represent them in various criminal and family law cases. She 
neglected each case. Respondent failed to keep one client informed 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-299 | November 16, 2018 
Page 3 of 6 
regarding the status of the client’s case and failed to inform three clients 
that Respondent was not going to attend a hearing prior to her failure to 
attend. She failed to return a client’s file after being terminated. She 
missed the deadline to file an Appellant’s Brief, resulting in dismissal of 
the client’s appeal, though the Court of Appeals later allowed a belated 
appeal.   
Respondent failed to attend hearings in nine of the cases, two of which 
were final hearings in family law matters. Respondent’s failure to attend 
hearings resulted in three show cause proceedings against her.    
Respondent appeared at one show cause hearing and admitted she was 
suffering from personal issues. In the other two, Respondent failed to 
appear. After the court entered a bench warrant against Respondent in 
one case, Respondent appeared and admitted she had not appeared for a 
change of plea hearing or the show cause hearing because she was 
voluntarily intoxicated at the time. Respondent has admitted to abusing 
cocaine during much of this period, rendering her unable to assist her 
clients.  
   Count 12. On May 26, 2017, when the bench warrant was served on 
Respondent, she was incoherent and impaired. Law enforcement found 
cocaine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in Respondent’s possession.  
She was charged with one Level 6 felony and two misdemeanors. She pled 
guilty to possession of cocaine as a Level 6 felony, though the trial court 
entered a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor.  
Count 13. On June 12, 2017, the Commission sent Respondent a 
demand for a response to an investigation. After receiving no response, 
the Commission filed a motion for rule to show cause as to why 
Respondent should not be suspended for non-cooperation. This Court 
ordered Respondent to respond within ten days. Only then did 
Respondent comply. Thereafter, the Court granted the Commission’s 
motion to dismiss the show cause petition and ordered Respondent to 
reimburse the Commission $519.89. 
The hearing officer cited as an aggravating factor Respondent’s prior 
discipline and found no evidence in mitigation. The hearing officer 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-299 | November 16, 2018 
Page 4 of 6 
recommended Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 
three years without automatic reinstatement. 
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: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. 
1.4(a)(3): Failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status 
of a matter.  
1.16(a)(2): Failure to withdraw from representation when the lawyer’s 
ability to represent the client is impaired. 
1.16(d): Failure promptly to return to a client case file materials to 
which the client is entitled after termination of representation. 
8.1(b): Failure to respond in a timely manner to the Commission’s 
demands for information.  
8.4(b): Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s 
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. 
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). 
Respondent was previously disciplined by public reprimand for failing 
to perfect an appeal for a client. See In re Brewer, 907 N.E.2d 965 (Ind. 
2009). In 2017, Respondent was the subject of two show cause 
proceedings.   
Respondent currently is under an interim suspension due to her 
conviction for a crime punishable as a felony, see Ind. Admission and 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-299 | November 16, 2018 
Page 5 of 6 
Discipline Rule 23(11.1)(a), and an administrative suspension for 
noncompliance with continuing education requirements.  
Respondent’s misconduct includes the neglect of multiple clients’ cases, 
the commission of a crime that reflects adversely on her fitness to practice 
law, and the failure to withdraw from cases when her drug abuse 
rendered her unable to represent clients. She has failed to accept 
responsibility for her misconduct and elected not to participate in these 
disciplinary proceedings.     
“One of the functions of the disciplinary process is to protect the public 
from attorneys who are, for whatever reason, unfit to practice law.” Matter 
of Wright, , 648 N.E.2d 1148, 1150 (Ind. 1995). Misconduct of the magnitude 
here has resulted in a lengthy suspension or disbarment. See Matter of 
White, 81 N.E.3d 211 (Ind. 2017); Matter of Pierce, 80 N.E.3d 888 (Ind. 2017); 
Matter of Engebretsen, 976 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2012); 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 
three years without automatic reinstatement. We agree with the hearing 
officer’s recommendation. After the suspension period, Respondent may 
be reinstated only after proving by clear and convincing evidence all of 
the factors enumerated in Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(b), which 
include genuine remorse for her misconduct, exemplary conduct since the 
discipline was imposed, and her fitness to practice law.   
Conclusion  
Respondent already is under interim and administrative suspensions.  
For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends 
Respondent from the practice of law in this state for not less than three 
years, without automatic reinstatement, effective immediately. 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. 18S-DI-299 | November 16, 2018 
Page 6 of 6 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. The 
hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged. 
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, and Slaughter, JJ., concur. 
Goff, J., did not participate. 
N O  A P P EA RA N CE FO R  T HE  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