Case Title: In the Matter of Joshua A. Parilman

Citation: 

Docket Number: 98S00-1012-DI-681

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2011-05-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT 
Pro se 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary 
Angie L. Ordway, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 98S00-1012-DI-681 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JOSHUA S. PARILMAN, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
_________________________________ 
 
 
May 27, 2011 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
 
Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11), the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a "Statement of 
Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline" stipulating agreed facts and proposed 
discipline.  Respondent's solicitation of clients within Indiana subjects him to this Court's 
exclusive jurisdiction to regulate professional legal activity in this state.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, 
§ 4; Matter of Murgatroyd, 741 N.E.2d 719 (Ind. 2001).   
 
The Court approves the agreement and finds that Respondent engaged in attorney 
misconduct by violating this state's ethical standards for advertizing legal services to Indiana 
residents.  For this misconduct, we bar Respondent indefinitely from acts constituting the 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
May 27 2011, 11:01 am
 
2 
practice of law in this state, including temporary admission and solicitation of clients, until 
further order of the Court.     
 
Background 
 
Respondent practices law in Arizona and is not licensed in Indiana.  In spring of 2010, he 
caused radio stations broadcasting in Indiana to air an advertisement inviting listeners involved 
in traffic accidents to call him.  The advertisement stated in part: 
 
Have you or a loved one been involved in a serious automobile accident?  . . . 
You can bet the insurance companies will have big-city lawyers on their side. 
Get protected with a national firm that specializes in automobile accidents to 
protect your rights and stand up for you and your family.   
 
If you, or a family member, have been harmed in an auto accident, call our 24-
hour free consultation line.  Open now at 800-xxx-xxxx.   
 
(Emphasis added.)  At least two Indiana residents responded to the advertisement.  Respondent's 
only office is located in Phoenix and he is not part of a national law firm.  He is not certified as a 
specialist in any field of practice by either Indiana or Arizona.   In fact, neither Indiana nor 
Arizona certify lawyers in the area of "automobile accidents." 
 
The parties cite the following facts in mitigation:   (1) Respondent has no disciplinary 
history; and (2) Respondent was cooperative with the Commission.   
 
Discussion 
 
Violations:  The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional 
Conduct Rules1 prohibiting the following misconduct: 
 
5.5(b)(2):  Falsely representing that the attorney is admitted to practice in Indiana. 
 
                                                 
1 The references are to the rules in effect at the time of the misconduct.  Effective January 1, 2011, some 
prohibitions regarding client solicitation were reworded and relocated.   
 
3 
7.2(b):  Using a public communication containing false, misleading and/or deceptive 
statements. 
 
7.2(c)(4):  Making a statement of specialization when not authorized. 
 
7.2(c)(6):  Making a statement that contains a representation or implication that is 
likely to cause an ordinary prudent person to misunderstand or be deceived. 
 
7.4:  Making a statement of specialization when not authorized. 
 
 
Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 30 permits the certification of lawyers as 
specialists by approved independent certifying organizations.  Among the purposes of this rule is 
to "assure that lawyers claiming special competence in a field of law have satisfied uniform 
criteria appropriate to the field."  Admis. Disc. R. 30, sec. 1(b).  An assertion by an attorney to be 
"specialized" outside the narrow scope of this rule is contrary to the purpose of this rule and 
misleading.  Similarly misleading is a statement to Indiana residents that an attorney is with a 
"national firm" when the attorney's only office is in a different state.  All attorneys, including 
those from other states, are obligated to know and comply with this state's ethical standards when 
advertizing legal services to Indiana residents, whether by individualized contact, mass media, or 
anything in-between.    
 
Discipline:  The parties propose the following discipline:  Respondent will be barred 
indefinitely from acts constituting the practice of law in this state, including temporary admission 
and solicitation of clients, until further order of the Court, and he will pay the costs of this 
proceeding.  We have imposed similar discipline on out-of-state attorneys who have violated this 
state's client solicitation rules, see Matter of Coale, 775 N.E.2d 1079, 1085 (Ind. 2002), and 
conclude that this is appropriate in the current case.   
 
Conclusion 
 
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, now approves the agreed 
discipline and bars Respondent indefinitely from acts constituting the practice of law in this 
state, including temporary admission and solicitation of clients, until further order of the Court.   
 
4 
 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.  With the acceptance of 
this agreement, the hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged.   
 
The Clerk of this Court is directed to give notice of this opinion to the hearing officer, to 
the parties or their respective attorneys, and to all other entities entitled to notice under 
Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d).  The Clerk is further directed to post this opinion to the 
Court's website, and Thomson Reuters is directed to publish a copy of this opinion in the bound 
volumes of this Court's decisions. 
 
All Justices concur.