Case Title: In the Matter of: Philip H. Chamberlain

Citation: 

Docket Number: 53S00-1303-DI-191

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2017-12-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
RESPONDENT PRO SE 
Philip H. Chamberlain 
Bloomington, Indiana 
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. 53S00-1303-DI-191 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PHILIP H. CHAMBERLAIN, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Christine Talley Haseman 
_________________________________ 
 
 
December 18, 2017 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We find that Respondent, Philip Chamberlain, engaged in attorney misconduct by 
committing the crime of counterfeiting.  For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent 
should be suspended from the practice of law in this state for at least three years without 
automatic reinstatement, effective from the date of this opinion.   
  
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 1990 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
Dec 18 2017, 2:23 pm
 
2 
Procedural Background and Facts 
 
Respondent endorsed a check payable to a third party, siphoned off $10,000 for himself, 
and provided the payee with a cashier’s check for the remainder.  Respondent did this without 
the payee’s knowledge or permission.  As a result, Respondent was charged with, and eventually 
pled guilty to, counterfeiting.  Respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 in restitution to the 
victim, although that amount later was reduced to $10,000.  Despite the ability and professed 
intent to make restitution, to date Respondent has paid only about $200. 
 
After Respondent was convicted, the Commission filed a “Notice of Finding of Guilt” on 
March 14, 2013, and we issued an order on June 11, 2013, suspending Respondent on an interim 
basis.  See Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11.1)(a).  The Commission filed a 
“Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action” against Respondent on October 28, 2013.  
Thereafter, Respondent sought and was granted a stay of these disciplinary proceedings pending 
resolution of certain proceedings in his criminal case.  On November 7, 2016, we issued an order 
lifting the stay.  Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer filed her report on 
September 6, 2017.     
 
Discussion and Discipline 
 
The Commission alleged, the hearing officer found, and Respondent admits violations of 
Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) (by committing a criminal act that reflects adversely 
on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer) and 8.4(c) (by engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).  We likewise conclude that Respondent 
violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) as charged.  
 
Respondent has petitioned for review, challenging certain findings in aggravation made 
by the hearing officer as well as the hearing officer’s rejection of two mitigating factors 
proffered by Respondent. 
 
The hearing officer found the following six facts in aggravation, of which Respondent 
challenges the first three:  (1) the victim was vulnerable; (2) Respondent has refused to 
 
3 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his misconduct; (3) Respondent has been indifferent to 
making restitution; (4) Respondent’s misconduct was illegal in nature; (5) Respondent’s 
misconduct was due to a dishonest or selfish motive; and (6) Respondent has substantial 
experience in the practice of law. 
 
We find ample support for the hearing officer’s comprehensive and well-reasoned 
findings.  In his own testimony, Respondent described the victim as a “broken man” at the time 
Respondent met him, which was shortly before Respondent committed the acts underlying his 
criminal conviction.  (Tr. at 122).  Although Respondent pled guilty, he has spent many of the 
intervening years denying that he committed counterfeiting and filing multiple collateral attacks, 
including an “Amended Motion for Relief [from] Judgment” filed in the criminal court shortly 
before final hearing in this matter in which Respondent alleged that his guilty plea and restitution 
order resulted from fraud and misconduct by the victim, the prosecutor, the judge, and the 
Indiana Securities Division.  (Comm’n Ex. 47).  And finally, the numerous promises made by 
Respondent over the years to pay the restitution, his failure to honor those promises despite an 
ability to pay, and the myriad efforts engaged in by Respondent to avoid his restitution 
obligation, are well-chronicled in Respondent’s own pleadings and testimony, the hearing 
officer’s report, and orders issued by the criminal court.1 
 
The hearing officer found two mitigating factors (Respondent’s lack of prior discipline 
and his cooperation with disciplinary proceedings), but Respondent argues the hearing officer 
should have found two more.  Again though, we find ample support for the hearing officer’s 
findings and analysis.  For the reasons described above, Respondent’s argument that he engaged 
in a “timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify [the] consequences of [his] 
misconduct” does not pass the straight face test.  And under the circumstances of this case, the 
                                                 
1 To cite just two illustrative examples, Respondent briefly made $20 monthly installment payments 
toward his restitution obligation, but ceased doing so immediately after his motions to terminate his 
probation early and to reduce his conviction from a class D felony to a class A misdemeanor were granted 
by the criminal court in 2014.  (Tr. at 66; Comm’n Ex. 44, p. 2).  And in 2016, Respondent brought a 
cashier’s check for full restitution plus interest to a hearing on a motion to correct error Respondent had 
filed, but refused to part with the check unless the State would agree to an early expungement of 
Respondent’s conviction.  (Id.)  After the State rebuffed Respondent’s proposal, Respondent wrote 
directly to the victim, threatening “that if I prevail on my pending motions the restitution award could be 
reduced to nothing[.]”  (Respondent’s Ex. K).     
 
4 
delay between Respondent’s misconduct and the resolution of these disciplinary proceedings is 
not mitigating in nature.  In the criminal case, Respondent was charged with five class C felonies 
in May 2008, he pled guilty to a single count of counterfeiting in October 2012 after several 
delays and continuances largely attributable to Respondent, and judgment of conviction and 
sentence were entered in February 2013.  The Commission initiated these disciplinary 
proceedings just one month later.  In May 2014, just two weeks prior to the scheduled final 
hearing in this matter, Respondent requested that his disciplinary case be stayed pending final 
disposition of proceedings on direct review of Respondent’s restitution order.  We granted 
Respondent’s request in June 2014, and we lifted the stay in November 2016, about two weeks 
after the Court of Appeals’ memorandum decision in Respondent’s criminal direct appeal was 
certified as final.  An evidentiary hearing in this matter was held three months later, in February 
2017.  In sum, while there have been several delays in both Respondent’s criminal and 
disciplinary proceedings, these delays are attributable almost entirely to Respondent. 
 
Turning to the ultimate question of sanction, misconduct of this nature usually warrants 
either a lengthy suspension without automatic reinstatement or else disbarment.  See, e.g., Matter 
of Durham, 55 N.E.3d 302 (Ind. 2016) (disbarment imposed on attorney who was convicted of 
multiple felony counts arising from a wide-ranging scheme to defraud investors); Matter of Page, 
8 N.E.3d 199 (Ind. 2014) (approving agreed suspension of two years without automatic 
reinstatement, not retroactive to the date of interim suspension, for attorney convicted of a single 
count of aiding and abetting wire fraud).   The Commission has not sought disbarment in this 
case.  The hearing officer recommended that Respondent be suspended for a significant period of 
time without automatic reinstatement, that Respondent’s suspension not be retroactive to the date 
of his interim suspension, and that Respondent be required to pay full restitution to the victim 
prior to filing a petition for reinstatement.  Upon careful consideration of the materials before us, 
we agree in full with the hearing officer’s recommendation.  
 
Conclusion 
 
Respondent already is under an order of interim suspension in this matter.  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 
 
5 
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).  Further, 
any such petition for reinstatement shall be accompanied by proof that full restitution has been 
paid to the victim and shall be subject to summary dismissal if such proof is lacking.    
 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent, and the hearing officer 
appointed in this case is discharged. 
 
All Justices concur.