Case Title: In the Matter of: Tenneil E. Selner

Citation: 

Docket Number: 71S00-1402-DI-96

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2015-07-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
RESPONDENT PRO SE 
Tenneil E. Selner 
South Bend, Indiana 
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. 71S00-1402-DI-96 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TENNEIL E. SELNER, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
_________________________________ 
 
 
July 9, 2015 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We find that Respondent, Tenneil Selner, engaged in attorney misconduct by unlawfully 
distributing pseudoephedrine.  For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be 
suspended from the practice of law in this state for at least three years without automatic 
reinstatement.   
  
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 2006 admission to this state’s bar subjects her to this Court’s 
disciplinary jurisdiction.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.  The Court approves the agreement and 
proposed discipline.   
 
Jul 09 2015, 3:04 pm
 
 
2 
Stipulated Facts 
 
 
On September 12, 2012, Respondent was indicted in federal court on three counts 
involving the manufacture of methamphetamine.  On October 4, 2013, Respondent pled guilty to 
one count of unlawful distribution of pseudoephedrine and the other two counts were dismissed.  
In her factual basis, Respondent admitted purchasing pseudoephedrine four times at different 
drug stores and then providing the pseudoephedrine to two other individuals, allowing those 
individuals to evade the identification statutes governing the purchase of pseudoephedrine.  
Respondent was sentenced to twenty-one months of imprisonment and two years of subsequent 
probation. 
 
The parties agree that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) by 
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or 
fitness as a lawyer.   
 
The parties cite no facts in aggravation.  In mitigation, the parties cite Respondent’s 
cooperation with the disciplinary process and her successful completion of a treatment program 
for methamphetamine addiction.   
 
Discussion and Discipline 
 
 
Our analysis of appropriate discipline entails consideration of the nature of the 
misconduct, the duties violated by the respondent, any resulting or potential harm, the 
respondent’s state of mind, our duty to preserve the integrity of the profession, the risk to the 
public should we allow the respondent to continue in practice, and matters in mitigation and 
aggravation.  See Matter of Newman, 958 N.E.2d 792, 800 (Ind. 2011). 
 
 
Respondent’s federal felony conviction, and the factual basis she provided for her guilty 
plea, point to her knowing assistance in the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine.  
These are not merely the acts of an end user.  Respondent actively engaged herself in the 
introduction of a controlled substance into a marketplace occupied by current and future victims 
of a devastating addiction.  It should go without saying that such misconduct warrants severe 
discipline.    
 
 
3 
 
In the current case, Respondent and the Commission propose that Respondent receive a 
three-year suspension from the practice of law, without automatic reinstatement, for her admitted 
misconduct.  Concluding that this is appropriate discipline under the circumstances, the Court 
approves the proposed discipline.  To regain her privilege to practice law, Respondent would be 
required to petition this Court for reinstatement, with the burden of demonstrating by clear and 
convincing evidence remorse for her misconduct, a proper understanding of the standards 
imposed upon members of the bar, and her rehabilitation and fitness to practice law, among other 
things.  See Admis. Disc. R. 23(4)(b).     
 
Conclusion 
 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 
by unlawfully distributing pseudoephedrine.  Respondent already is under an order of interim 
suspension in this cause and a separate suspension order for dues nonpayment and continuing 
legal education noncompliance.  For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends 
Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than three years, without 
automatic reinstatement, effective from the date of this opinion.  Respondent shall fulfill all the 
duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).  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 Rules 23(4) and (18).   
 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.  The hearing officer 
appointed in this case is discharged. 
 
Rush, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur. 
Dickson, J., dissents, and would reject the Conditional Agreement, believing that the 
Respondent, by engaging in conduct resulting in her conviction of a serious felony, has 
demonstrated unfitness to responsibly represent, advise, and serve future clients.