Case Title: In the Matter of:  Harold E. Bean

Citation: 

Docket Number: 49S00-1601-DI-2

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2016-09-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
RESPONDENT PRO SE 
Harold E. Bean 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary 
Angie Ordway, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 49S00-1601-DI-2 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HAROLD E. BEAN, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Paul Felix 
_________________________________ 
 
 
September 1, 2016 
 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We find that Respondent, Harold E. Bean, engaged in attorney misconduct.  For this 
misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be disbarred.   
  
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 1974 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
Sep 01 2016, 10:43 am
 
 
Procedural Background and Facts 
 
 
Respondent was the elected Clerk-Treasurer of the Town of Warren Park.  Over the span 
of several months in 2014, Respondent stole $20,800 from the Town by writing dozens of checks 
payable to himself.  Respondent was charged with theft and official misconduct, both Class D 
felonies, and later pled guilty as charged. Respondent has been under an order of interim 
suspension since October 7, 2015, as a result of his felony convictions.  See Matter of Bean, 53 
N.E.3d 402 (Ind. 2015). 
 
 
The Commission charged Respondent with violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 
8.4(b) by committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.  Following a hearing, the hearing officer filed his report to 
this Court on June 14, 2016, concluding that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) as charged and 
recommending that Respondent be disbarred.  
 
Discussion and Discipline 
 
No petition for review of the hearing officer’s report or brief on sanctions has been filed.  
When neither party challenges the findings of the hearing officer, “we accept and adopt those 
findings but reserve final judgment as to misconduct and sanction.”  Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 
1257, 1258 (Ind. 2000).  We concur in the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclude that 
Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b). 
 
 
As we have observed before, criminal action by an attorney in public office “strikes at the 
very heart of public trust in our institutions of government and the legal profession.”  Matter of 
White, 54 N.E.3d 993, 994 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Matter of Gutman, 599 N.E.2d 604, 609 (Ind. 
1992)).  Such misconduct consistently has resulted in disbarment or a substantial period of 
suspension without automatic reinstatement.  See, e.g., Matter of Philpot, 31 N.E.3d 468 (Ind. 
2015) (following an interim suspension of over two years, suspending an elected county clerk 
convicted of theft and mail fraud for an additional four years without automatic reinstatement); 
Matter of Hughes, 640 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. 1994) (disbarring a city court judge convicted of theft 
 
 
and official misconduct); Matter of Willardo, 493 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. 1986) (disbarring an elected 
coroner convicted of theft for fraudulently diverting county funds into his campaign account).    
 
We acknowledge Respondent’s acceptance of responsibility, his efforts to address the 
ongoing gambling addiction underlying his misconduct, and his impassioned plea during 
proceedings before the hearing officer for a sanction short of disbarment.  However, the 
seriousness of Respondent’s misconduct, and Respondent’s history of attorney and judicial 
discipline (the latter of which, significantly, also included willful misconduct in office),1 compel 
us to agree with the hearing officer that disbarment is warranted in this case. 
 
Conclusion 
 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by 
committing crimes that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer.  
Respondent already is under an order of interim suspension as well as a separate suspension 
order for nonpayment of dues.  For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court disbars 
Respondent from the practice of law in this state, effective immediately.  Respondent shall fulfill 
all the duties of a disbarred attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).  The costs of 
this proceeding are assessed against Respondent, and the hearing officer appointed in this case is 
discharged.   
 
All Justices concur. 
  
                                                 
1 Matter of Bean, 756 N.E.2d 964 (Ind. 2001); Matter of Bean, 529 N.E.2d 836 (Ind. 1988).