Case Title: In the Matter of Hilary Bowe Ricks

Citation: 

Docket Number: 18S-DI-574

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2019-06-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-574 
In the Matter of  
Hilary Bowe Ricks, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: June 17, 2019 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Jonathan M. Brown 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa and Goff concur. 
Justices David and Slaughter concur in part and dissent in part. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jun 17 2019, 11:10 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-574 | June 17, 2019 
Page 2 of 7 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Hilary Bowe Ricks, committed attorney 
misconduct by neglecting clients’ cases and by failing to cooperate with 
the disciplinary process. For this misconduct, we conclude that 
Respondent should be suspended for at least two years without automatic 
reinstatement. 
This matter is now before us on the report of the hearing officer 
appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission’s amended disciplinary complaint. 
Respondent’s 1986 admission to this state’s bar subjects her to this Court’s 
disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. 
Procedural Background and Facts  
The Commission filed a “Disciplinary Complaint” against Respondent 
on November 20, 2018, which it later amended. Respondent was served 
with the amended complaint but has not appeared, responded, or 
otherwise participated in these proceedings. Accordingly, the 
Commission filed a “Motion for Judgment on the Complaint,” and the 
hearing officer took the facts alleged in the amended disciplinary 
complaint as true. 
No petition for review of the hearing officer’s report 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). 
Count 1. In 2013, “Client 1” contacted Respondent regarding his 
desire to pursue an expungement of various past criminal proceedings. In 
April 2014, Respondent told Client 1 she would charge $991 for the 
requisite case filings and $250 to attend any hearing. Respondent required 
Client 1 to pay $691 of that amount up front in three biweekly 
installments, which Client 1 did. In the ensuing three-plus years, 
Respondent never filed an expungement petition on Client 1’s behalf and 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-574 | June 17, 2019 
Page 3 of 7 
rarely responded to Client 1’s inquiries. In mid-2017, Respondent told 
Client 1 that his expungement petition was “next on my list.” 
Client 1 filed a grievance with the Commission in November 2017. 
Respondent did not timely respond to the Commission’s demand for 
information and a subsequent subpoena duces tecum, prompting the 
initiation of two separate show cause proceedings. Respondent belatedly 
complied with the demand and the subpoena. Respondent told the 
Commission that she did not file Client 1’s expungement petition because 
he had not paid sufficient fees; yet, Client 1 paid the upfront installments 
Respondent had requested, and Respondent never told Client 1 that she 
was delaying action because of fees owing. 
Respondent did not refund unearned fees to Client 1 or surrender any 
completed work to Client 1. 
Count 2. In 2012, “Client 2” hired Respondent to pursue post-
conviction relief (“PCR”) on his behalf. Respondent charged and collected 
$8,500 ($3,500 to review the case and $5,000 to file a petition and litigate it 
until a ruling was reached). For the next three years, Respondent grew 
increasingly less responsive to inquiries from Client 2 and his wife. 
Respondent filed an amended PCR petition in October 2015, and an 
evidentiary hearing was set for December 18, 2015. 
Two days before that hearing, Respondent successfully moved for a 
continuance. Respondent did not communicate with Client 2 about the 
continuance, causing inconvenience to friends and family members of 
Client 2 who had appeared for the vacated hearing after taking time off 
from work. 
The hearing was reset for April 1, 2016. Respondent failed to subpoena 
necessary witnesses or arrange for Client 2 to be transported to the 
hearing. Respondent filed a motion for continuance the day before the 
hearing, which the court denied. Both Respondent and Client 2 failed to 
appear for the April 1 hearing, and the court entered judgment for the 
State on the merits. 
Respondent did not refund the $5,000 in unearned fees until after a 
grievance was filed against her in this matter. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-574 | June 17, 2019 
Page 4 of 7 
Count 3. In January 2013, “Client 3” hired Respondent to pursue PCR 
on his behalf. Respondent charged and collected $8,500 ($4,000 to review 
the case and $4,500 to file a petition and litigate it). At Respondent’s 
urging, Client 3 filed a pro se PCR petition in March 2013. Thereafter, a 
public defender appeared on behalf of Client 3 and performed a 
significant amount of work on the case. 
In November 2015, Respondent appeared for Client 3 and the public 
defender withdrew. A hearing was set for December 28, 2015. On the day 
of the hearing, Respondent informed the court by phone she was ill, and 
the court continued the hearing without resetting it. 
In May 2017, the court set Client 3’s case for a Trial Rule 41(E) hearing 
due to Respondent’s failure to prosecute the case. On June 26, the day 
before the scheduled hearing, Respondent successfully moved to vacate 
the hearing and set the matter for an evidentiary hearing, which the court 
scheduled for October 11, 2017. 
On October 10, the court granted a continuance pending negotiation of 
an agreed resolution and sentence modification and reset the hearing for 
January 3, 2018. Despite the State’s agreement to a modification, 
Respondent failed to follow through and file a motion to modify Client 3’s 
sentence. Respondent also did not move to continue the January 3 hearing 
or arrange to have Client 3 transported for that hearing, and she ignored 
multiple phone queries from court staff about these matters in the days 
leading up to the hearing. Respondent then failed to appear at the January 
3 hearing. The court removed her as counsel and appointed a public 
defender. 
Respondent did not refund the $4,500 in unearned fees until after an 
investigation was undertaken by the Commission. 
Count 4. “Client 4” retained Respondent in early 2016 to assist him 
with a sentence modification.  Respondent charged and collected $850 up 
front. For a very brief period of time Respondent was responsive and 
worked on the matter, but she quickly grew unresponsive to inquiries and 
ultimately did not appreciably advance the case. Respondent did not 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-574 | June 17, 2019 
Page 5 of 7 
timely refund unearned fees despite assurances provided by her assistant 
that she would do so. 
Discussion and Discipline 
We concur in the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclude that 
Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 
prohibiting the following misconduct: 
1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. 
1.4(a)(3): Failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter. 
1.4(a)(4): Failure to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable 
requests for information. 
1.4(b): Failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary 
to permit a client to make informed decisions. 
1.16(d): After the termination of representation, failure to refund an 
unearned fee and failure promptly to return to a client case file 
materials to which the client is entitled. 
8.1(b): Failure to respond in a timely manner to the Commission’s 
demands for information. 
8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice. 
Respondent’s multiple transgressions in this case are but the latest 
chapter in a lengthy history of shirking her professional duties toward 
clients, courts, and the Commission. Respondent has been suspended 
twice before for substantially identical misconduct. In 2005, we suspended 
Respondent for six months (all stayed to probation) for, among other 
things, neglect of multiple post-conviction matters. Matter of Ricks, 835 
N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 2005). In 2018, we suspended Respondent for 180 days 
(with 90 days actively served and the balance stayed to probation) for 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-574 | June 17, 2019 
Page 6 of 7 
neglect of multiple post-conviction matters and noncooperation with the 
Commission. Matter of Ricks, 102 N.E.3d 883 (Ind. 2018) (“Ricks II”).1    
In recent years, Respondent also has been the subject of five separate 
show cause proceedings arising from her noncooperation with 
investigations by the Commission into grievances filed against 
Respondent. Further, while outside the record of these disciplinary 
proceedings, we judicially note that Respondent has been found in 
contempt of this Court for disobedience to our orders demanding the 
return of appellate records to the Clerk and, as a sanction, she has been 
barred from withdrawing further records in cases over which this Court 
has exercised jurisdiction.2 
The instant case – the third disciplinary prosecution against 
Respondent for the same type of systemic negligence that has 
characterized her career – makes clear that her professional shortcomings 
have not been remedied and in fact are growing worse. Respondent’s 
refusal to appear or participate in these proceedings, while already on 
disciplinary probation, reinforces this conclusion. The hearing officer 
succinctly summed up these aggravating factors and others in concluding 
that “Respondent cannot be safely recommended to the public as a lawyer 
who they can trust to handle their affairs.” (HO’s Report at 26). 
To protect the public, and in particular the vulnerable clientele within 
Respondent’s niche practice, we conclude that a lengthy period of 
suspension without automatic reinstatement is both necessary and 
appropriate. In order to gain reinstatement following the conclusion of her 
minimum term of suspension, Respondent will bear a heavy burden of 
clearly and convincingly establishing her fitness to resume practice. While 
                                                 
1 Respondent’s automatic reinstatement was delayed beyond the initial 90-day term in Ricks II 
due to her belated and incomplete compliance with the terms of her suspension and the 
duties of a suspended attorney. As of this writing, a petition to revoke Respondent’s 
probation in Ricks II is pending. 
2 See Shane v. State, No. 68S00-9710-CR-526 (orders issued Aug. 10, 2011 and Feb. 13, 2012). 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-574 | June 17, 2019 
Page 7 of 7 
there exists very little in this record suggesting Respondent will be 
capable of doing so, we choose not to close that door entirely. 
Conclusion 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated Professional Conduct 
Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.4(b), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d). For 
Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent 
from the practice of law for a period of not less than two years, without 
automatic reinstatement, effective immediately. At the conclusion of the 
minimum period of suspension, Respondent may petition this Court for 
reinstatement to the practice of law in this state, provided Respondent 
pays the costs of this proceeding, fulfills the duties of a suspended 
attorney, and satisfies the requirements for reinstatement of Admission 
and Discipline Rule 23(18). 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. The 
hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged. 
Rush, C.J., and Massa and Goff, JJ., concur. 
David and Slaughter, JJ., concur with the findings of misconduct but 
dissent as to sanction, believing that Respondent should be 
disbarred. 
N O  A P P EA RA N CE FO R  T H E  RE SP O N D EN T  
 
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