Case Title: In the Matter of Daniel Cueller

Citation: 

Docket Number: 49S00-0411-DI-475

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2008-02-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT 
Alan S. Townsend 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary 
Robert C. Shook, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
0BIn the 
1BIndiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 49S00-0411-DI-475 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DANIEL CUELLER, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
_________________________________ 
 
 
February 27, 2008 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
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 Com-
plaint for Disciplinary Action," and on the post-hearing briefing by the parties. We find that 
Respondent, Daniel Cueller, engaged in attorney misconduct by failing to hold property of cli-
ents properly in trust, failing to maintain a ledger with separate records for each client with funds 
deposited in a trust account, and knowingly making false statements of material fact to the Disci-
plinary Commission in connection with this disciplinary matter. 
     
 
The Respondent's 1986 admission to this state's bar subjects him to this Court's discipli-
nary jurisdiction.  
USeeU IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.  For his misconduct, we find that Respondent 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Feb 27 2008, 2:22 pm
 
2
should be suspended from the practice of law in this state for a period of six months, with all but 
30 days stayed, subject to an 18-month period of probation. 
 
UBackground 
 
The charges of the disciplinary complaint against Respondent begin with the following 
chronology of events: 
 
January 24, 2002  
Respondent deposited a $4,500.00 check, received in settlement of a cli-
ent's claim ("settlement check"), into his attorney trust account.  Of this 
amount, the client was entitled to $3,400.00.   
 
February 12, 2002 
The balance in the trust fund account fell below $3,400.00. 
 
February 19, 2002 
Respondent made a $4,673.08 deposit into his trust account, consisting of  
four checks unrelated to the client's case.   
 
February 20, 2002 
The balance in the trust fund account again fell below $3,400.00. 
 
February 27, 2002 
Respondent wrote a $3,400.00 check to the client ("client check"). 
 
March 4, 2002 
The client check was returned for insufficient funds. 
 
March 5-12, 2002 
Respondent deposited $1,384.08 in funds unrelated to client's case. 
 
March 12, 2002 
The client check cleared.  The balance afterward was $180.60. 
 
 
Between the time the settlement check was deposited and the time the client check 
cleared, Respondent had made six withdrawals totaling $5,100.00 from his trust account for his 
own benefit. 
 
When the Commission asked about the overdraft, Respondent told the Commission by 
letter that it was because he had given the client check to the client prior to making his "trust 
account deposits," which the Commission and hearing officer understood to mean the settlement 
check ("First Statement").  Respondent later told the Commission that he believed he had 
deposited the settlement check on February 19, 2002 ("Second Statement").  Still later, 
Respondent told the Commission he believed the overdraft occurred because he had mistakenly 
 
3
taken too much for his fees for the client's case out of the trust fund account.  He said he told the 
client not to cash the client check until he could redeposit the excess fees, but the client did not 
wait1 ("Third Statement").  The deposit Respondent made after the client check was dishonored, 
however, was unrelated to the client's case.  The hearing officer found the three "conflicting 
explanations were knowingly made by the Respondent and each statement was false."   
 
UDiscussion 
 
Respondent does not dispute that he was negligent in maintaining and keeping records for 
his trust account.  He admits that he used his trust account as an informal savings account for 
himself and that he was "out of trust" regarding the funds he owed to the client.  He denies, 
however, making any knowingly false statements to the Commission. 
 
Respondent contends his First Statement was actually correct because the "trust account 
deposits" did not refer to deposit of the settlement check, but rather to the unrelated funds 
Respondent made after the client picked up the client check.  Respondent's letter to the 
Commission in which he made the First Statement goes on to say:  "To insure there will be no 
further trust account issues, clients will wait until settlement checks are deposited and cleared 
before the client receives his or her settlement proceeds."  This implies that the overdraft at issue 
occurred because Respondent had given the client check to the client before Respondent had 
deposited the settlement check, which was incorrect. 
 
Respondent admits the Second Statement—that the settlement check was deposited on 
February 19, 2002—was incorrect.  He contends, however, that he corrected the misstatement in 
a follow-up letter as soon as he received bank statements showing the deposit was actually made 
on January 24.  A later correction, however, does not necessarily mean an original false 
statement was not knowingly made.    
 
                                                 
1 The client admitted that Respondent asked him to wait three or four days to cash the client check and 
that he did not wait. 
 
4
Respondent contends that the Third Statement—that he asked the client not to cash the 
client check "so I could make sure to redeposit my excess fees"—was accurate.  Respondent, 
however, made no deposit representing reimbursement of excess fees between the time the client 
check was dishonored and the time it cleared.  Respondent contends that nearly all the amounts 
he deposited during this period were his own funds (e.g., fees from other clients, rental income), 
not client funds.  Nevertheless, the evidence supports a finding that Respondent's statement was 
knowingly false in its implication that Respondent intended to deposit an amount certain 
representing his excess fees to cover the client check rather than depositing miscellaneous 
unrelated checks from various sources so the client check would clear.  
 
The review process in disciplinary cases involves de novo examination of all matters 
presented to the Court, but the Hearing Officer's findings receive emphasis due to the unique 
opportunity for direct observation of witnesses.  See 
UIn re KernU, 555 N.E.2d 479, 480 (Ind. 
1990).  The Commission carries the burden of proof to demonstrate attorney misconduct by clear 
and convincing evidence.  See Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23(14)(h); 
UIn re SiegelU, 708 
N.E.2d 869, 870 (Ind. 1999).  
 
The Court concludes the record in this case supports the hearing officer's finding that 
Respondent made knowingly false statements to the Commission.  Even if Respondent's Second 
Statement was an innocent misstatement, the evidence regarding the First and Third Statements 
shows an intent to mislead the Commission into believing Respondent's trust fund problem was 
an isolated (and remedied) event rather than an on-going, systemic failure.   
 
In addressing another attorney's breach of his duty of complete candor toward the 
Commission, this Court stated:   
 
 
Respondent's less than honest response to the Commission's initial 
investigative inquiry represents a significant breach of professional ethics.  As a 
member of a licensed and regulated profession, Respondent and all lawyers are 
called upon to conform to a rigid set of ethical guidelines.  Fundamental in this 
framework is the concept that lawyers must abide by high standards of integrity 
and honesty.  Respondent's deceitful statements represent a serious departure from 
these expected norms.  Further, ours is a profession that is largely self-governed.  
It is a perversion of the disciplinary enforcement mechanism when a lawyer 
 
5
intentionally places false statements of fact before the Commission.  Such actions 
seriously inhibit the ability of the Commission to effectively carry out its mission. 
 
UIn re ShumateU, 626 N.E.2d 459, 461 (Ind. 1993) (imposing a suspension from the practice of law 
for a period of not less than thirty days).    
 
 
Because of Respondent's knowingly false statements to the Commission, the Court 
concludes that a period of active suspension is warranted.   
 
UConclusion 
 
The Court finds that Respondent violated these rules, which prohibit the following 
misconduct:  
 
Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23(29)(a)(3):  Failure to maintain a ledger with 
separate records for each client with funds deposited in a trust account. 
 
Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 1.15(a):  Failure to hold property of clients properly in 
trust.   
 
Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 8.1(a):  Knowingly making a false statement of material 
fact to the Disciplinary Commission in connection with a disciplinary matter. 
 
Although Respondent was also charged with violation of Professional Conduct Rule 
8.4(b) for alleged conversion of client funds, the Court concludes the evidence does not support a 
finding of such misconduct. 
 
For this professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of 
law for a period of six months, beginning April 11, 2008, with all but 30 days stayed, subject to 
an 18-month period of probation beginning at the end of Respondent's active suspension.  During 
probation, Respondent shall have his trust account monitored by a CPA at his own expense to 
criteria acceptable to the Disciplinary Commission, who will then report quarterly to the 
Commission on Respondent's compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct and the 
Admission and Discipline Rules governing lawyer trust accounts.  
 
 
6
Respondent shall not undertake any new legal matters between service of this order and 
the effective date of the suspension, and Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended 
attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).   
 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.  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).   
 
All Justices concur.