Case Title: In the Matter of Anonymous

Citation: 

Docket Number: 73S00-0812-DI-626

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT 
Jeffrey S. Bate 
Shelbyville, Indiana 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
Seth T. Pruden, Interim Executive Secretary 
Laura Iosue, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 73S00-0812-DI-626 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANONYMOUS, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
_________________________________ 
 
 
July 1, 2010 
 
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.  The Respondent's 1980 admission to this state's bar subjects him to this Court's 
disciplinary jurisdiction.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.   
 
The Court approves the agreement and finds that Respondent engaged in attorney 
misconduct by employing a legal assistant whose incarceration made it impossible for 
Respondent to ensure that the assistant's conduct was compatible with Respondent's professional 
obligations to his client.  For this misconduct, we find that Respondent should receive a private 
reprimand.   
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Jul 01 2010, 3:02 pm
 
2 
 
Background 
 
The State Public Defender assigned Respondent as an independent contractor to represent 
a client in a post-conviction relief ("PCR") proceeding.  With the client's consent, Respondent 
entered into an agreement with a nonlawyer inmate in the same facility where the client was 
incarcerated under which the inmate would assist in researching and preparing a PCR petition for 
the client.  In exchange, Respondent agreed to represent the inmate in his own PCR proceeding. 
   
Respondent retained the inmate as an independent legal assistant who was not employed 
by a specific firm or lawyer.  The inmate had limited access to communication, no expectation of 
privacy, and limited access to research resources.  Respondent had limited ability to review the 
inmate's work.  Respondent could not supervise the inmate and could not ensure that the inmate 
would be able to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct.  These events took place in 
1998-1999.  There was considerable delay in the submission of a grievance to the Commission, 
which filed a verified complaint against Respondent in 2008.      
 
Facts in mitigation include:  (1) Respondent has no disciplinary history; (2) he fully 
cooperated with the Commission; and (3) he has a good reputation in the area in which he 
practices.   
 
Discussion 
 
Professional Conduct Rule 5.3, concerning an attorney's responsibilities regarding 
nonlawyer assistants, states: 
With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated 
with a lawyer: 
. . . . 
(b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the 
nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the 
 
3 
person's conduct is compatible with the professional 
obligations of the lawyer . . . . 
(Emphasis added.)  Comment [1] to this rule provides: 
Lawyers generally employ assistants in their practice, including 
secretaries, investigators, law student interns, paralegals and other 
paraprofessionals. . . .  A lawyer must give such assistants 
appropriate instruction and supervision concerning the ethical 
aspects of their employment, particularly regarding the 
obligation not to disclose information relating to 
representation of the client, and should be responsible for their 
work product.  The measures employed in supervising nonlawyers 
should take account of the fact that they may not have legal 
training and are not subject to professional discipline. 
(Emphasis added.)   
 
 
 
 
The Court has provided guidelines to assist lawyers in their use of non-lawyer assistants, 
which provide in relevant part: 
Introduction 
Subject to the provisions in Rule 5.3, all lawyers may use non-
lawyer assistants in accordance with the following guidelines. 
Guideline 9.1. Supervision 
 
A non-lawyer assistant shall perform services only under 
the direct supervision of a lawyer authorized to practice in the 
State of Indiana and in the employ of the lawyer or the lawyer's 
employer.  Independent non-lawyer assistants, to-wit, those not 
employed by a specific firm or by specific lawyers are 
prohibited.  A lawyer is responsible for all of the professional 
actions of a non-lawyer assistant performing services at the 
lawyer's direction and should take reasonable measures to insure 
that the non-lawyer assistant's conduct is consistent with the 
lawyer's obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct. 
(Emphasis added.)   
 
In this case, Respondent's employment of an incarcerated legal assistant made it 
impossible for Respondent to supervise properly the assistant's work, to prevent client 
 
4 
confidences from being compromised, and to ensure that the inmate would be able to comply 
with the Rules of Professional Conduct.   
 
Conclusion 
 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated Professional Conduct Rule 5.3.  The 
parties propose the appropriate discipline is private reprimand.  The discipline the Court would 
impose for Respondent's misconduct would likely be more severe had this matter been submitted 
without an agreement.  The Court also notes that Respondent's misconduct occurred more than a 
decade ago and that his record in nearly 30 years of practice is otherwise unblemished.  The 
Court therefore APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline.   For Respondent's professional 
misconduct, the Court imposes a private reprimand.    
 
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 and 
to the parties or their respective attorneys.  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.