Case Title: In the Matter of Marcus E. Ellison

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

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

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 71S00-1704-DI-187 
In the Matter of 
Marcus E. Ellison 
 Respondent. 
Decided: August 8, 2018 
Attorney Discipline Action 
  
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Aug 08 2018, 11:45 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 71S00-1704-DI-187 | August 8, 2018 
Page 2 of 5 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Marcus Ellison, engaged in conduct in 
contempt of this Court by failing to comply with our opinion suspending 
him from practice. As sanctions for his contempt, we extend Respondent’s 
suspension, order him to pay a fine, and order Respondent to serve 15 
days in prison if the fine is not timely paid. 
This matter is before the Court on the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission’s “Verified Motion for Rule to Show Cause.” 
Respondent’s 2001 admission to this state’s bar and his unauthorized 
practice of law in this state while suspended subject him to this Court’s 
disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. 
Discussion 
On December 20, 2017, this Court issued an opinion suspending 
Respondent from the practice of law for at least 90 days without automatic 
reinstatement, effective beginning January 31, 2018. Respondent’s 
misconduct involved neglect of an appeal and pervasive dishonesty 
toward his client, the Court of Appeals, and the Commission. Matter of 
Ellison, 87 N.E.3d 460 (Ind. 2017). That suspension remains in effect. 
The Commission filed a “Verified Motion for Rule to Show Cause” on 
April 16, 2018, asserting Respondent practiced law and held himself out as 
an attorney while suspended. Specifically, the Commission alleges that on 
separate occasions in February 2018 Respondent (1) attempted to engage 
in settlement discussions with opposing counsel on behalf of “Client 1,” 
and (2) identified himself as counsel for “Client 2” and sought electronic 
copies of discovery from opposing counsel in that case. 
The Commission’s verified motion asserts further that Respondent has 
failed to comply with the duties of a suspended attorney under Indiana 
Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26) as ordered by this Court. 
Specifically, the Commission alleges among other things that Respondent 
has failed to provide notice of his suspension in every pending matter in 
which he has filed an appearance and has failed to withdraw as counsel in 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 71S00-1704-DI-187 | August 8, 2018 
Page 3 of 5 
those pending matters. The Commission alleges that Respondent’s failure 
to comply with the requirements of Rule 23(26) that he withdraw from 
clients’ cases and make appropriate arrangements to transition those cases 
to successor counsel or pro se representation has actively harmed the 
interests of “Client 3,” against whom summary judgment and final 
judgment were sought and awarded while Respondent was suspended 
and unable to file anything on Client 3’s behalf.  
The Court issued an order to show cause on April 17, 2018. Respondent 
filed a response on May 1, 2018, and the parties filed additional responsive 
pleadings thereafter. Respondent’s responses are not verified, nor do they 
directly contradict the factual allegations made by the Commission in its 
verified motion. With respect to Client 1, Respondent points to settlement 
discussions that he claims occurred prior to his suspension taking effect, 
but Respondent does not deny the Commission’s allegation that he 
attempted to engage opposing counsel in a settlement discussion after his 
suspension became effective. With respect to Client 2, Respondent admits 
that after the effective date of his suspension he sent an email to opposing 
counsel in which he requested discovery, identified himself as “the listed 
attorney on this matter,” stated “I am local counsel for the client,” and 
informed opposing counsel that “I have been asked to withdraw.” And 
with respect to Client 3, Respondent implicitly acknowledges his failure to 
comply with the requirements of Rule 23(26) but claims without any 
support that the entry of summary judgment against Client 3 was the 
result of a settlement reached months earlier, prior to his suspension 
taking effect. 
Based on the above, we find that Respondent has violated this Court’s 
opinion suspending him from the practice of law as asserted by the 
Commission in its verified motion.1 And as we did in another opinion 
handed down today, we conclude that a fine and extension of 
Respondent’s suspension are warranted here, and that Respondent should 
                                                 
1 We do not address an additional allegation of contempt with respect to “Client 4,” which 
was asserted by the Commission for the first time in an unverified responsive pleading. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 71S00-1704-DI-187 | August 8, 2018 
Page 4 of 5 
serve a period of imprisonment if he fails to timely pay his fine in full. See 
Matter of Huston, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Aug. 8, 2018).   
Conclusion 
We conclude that Respondent engaged in conduct in contempt of this 
Court by failing to comply with our opinion suspending him from 
practice, and we impose the following sanctions for Respondent’s 
contempt. 
The Court fines Respondent $750. Respondent shall remit this amount 
within thirty (30) days of service of this opinion to the Clerk of the 
Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax Court. 
If Respondent fails to pay the $750 fine in full by the deadline set 
forth above, this Court shall order Respondent to serve a term of 
imprisonment for a period of 15 days, without the benefit of good time, 
and the Sheriff of the Supreme Court of Indiana will be directed to take 
Respondent into custody and turn him over to the Indiana Department of 
Correction. Respondent may avoid said imprisonment only upon 
payment in full of the $750 fine assessed against him within the deadline 
set forth above. In the event Respondent fails to timely pay his $750 fine in 
full and serves the resulting term of imprisonment, Respondent thereafter 
shall be released from the obligation to pay the assessed fine. 
Finally, the Court orders that the minimum length of Respondent’s 
current suspension from the practice of law in this state be extended and 
that Respondent remain suspended for a period of not less than one year, 
without automatic reinstatement, effective from the date of this opinion. 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent and will 
be taxed by separate order. 
All Justices concur. 
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 71S00-1704-DI-187 | August 8, 2018 
Page 5 of 5 
R E S P ON D E NT  P R O  S E  
Marcus E. Ellison 
South Bend, Indiana 
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 
Angie L. Ordway, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana