Title: In the Matter of Edward R. Hall

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 98S00-1703-DI-152 
In the Matter of 
Edward R. Hall, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: October 18, 2018 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Alger Boswell 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Oct 18 2018, 9:47 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 98S00-1703-DI-152 | October 18, 2018 
Page 2 of 7 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Edward R. Hall, committed attorney 
misconduct by, among other things, disobeying a subpoena and causing 
another witness to do the same, neglecting clients’ cases, and engaging in 
a pattern of dishonesty. 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 disciplinary complaint. Respondent’s 
2000 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court’s disciplinary 
jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. 
Procedural Background and Facts  
The Commission filed a three-count “Disciplinary Complaint” against 
Respondent on March 17, 2017, and we appointed a hearing officer. 
Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer issued his report on 
August 7, 2018, finding Respondent committed violations as charged. 
Neither party has filed a petition for review of those findings or a brief on 
sanction. 
Count 1. A parcel of improved real estate (“Property”), once owned by 
Respondent, was transferred to a “Land Trust” in 1995. Laura Hanus, 
Respondent’s girlfriend (and later Respondent’s legal secretary after 
Respondent was admitted to the Indiana bar), became the 100% 
beneficiary of the Land Trust soon thereafter. In 2012, the Property 
became subject to a tax sale due to the nonpayment of property taxes for 
several years. Respondent represented the Land Trust in legal proceedings 
that followed, and during those proceedings an issue arose regarding 
whether Respondent still had an ownership interest in the Property. 
Respondent failed to comply with discovery and soon was facing motions 
from the Lake County Auditor for sanctions and to disqualify Respondent 
from representing the Land Trust. The trial court scheduled a hearing on 
sanctions for September 4, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., and Respondent and Hanus 
were subpoenaed to appear. Respondent falsely informed Hanus that the 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 98S00-1703-DI-152 | October 18, 2018 
Page 3 of 7 
hearing would not occur and she need not honor the subpoena. When 
neither Respondent nor Hanus appeared for the hearing at 9:00 a.m., the 
presiding magistrate called Respondent’s law office, spoke with Hanus, 
and advised her that she and Respondent needed to appear in court later 
that morning or be subject to contempt. Respondent and Hanus then 
complied. 
Count 2. Respondent represented “Client 2,” a manufacturer, in an 
action against a seller and a rival manufacturer. The fee agreement was 
not reduced to writing. Client 2 offered, and Respondent accepted, a 
trailer valued at $9,000 as a retainer. Shortly thereafter Client 2 paid an 
additional $5,000 at Respondent’s request. Six months after the suit was 
filed, Respondent sought an additional $5,000 from Client 2, who 
indicated an inability to pay. Respondent then stated he would convert 
the agreement to a contingency agreement. However, that agreement was 
not reduced to writing and the percentage contemplated for Respondent’s 
fee is not known.   
Meanwhile, Respondent had not forwarded discovery requests to 
Client 2, and Respondent began avoiding responding to Client 2’s 
inquiries. Respondent’s failure to comply with discovery led to sanctions 
against Client 2 and an order to comply. Respondent did not inform Client 
2 of these events until two days after the deadline to comply, when 
Respondent told Client 2 he had five days to gather telephone and sales 
records spanning seven years. In February 2015, the court dismissed 
Client 2’s suit and ordered Client 2 to pay attorney fees. Respondent did 
not inform Client 2 of these events. Months later, the seller sought to place 
a hold on Client 2’s bank account; when Client 2 asked Respondent about 
this, Respondent told him not to worry. 
While that suit was still pending, in June 2014 Client 2 separately was 
sued by a supplier for nonpayment, and Respondent agreed to represent 
Client 2 in that matter as well. Unbeknownst to Client 2, Respondent took 
no action in that matter, a judgment was entered against Client 2, and the 
supplier later placed a hold on Client 2’s bank account. When Client 2 
contacted Respondent about this, Respondent falsely told Client 2 that he 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 98S00-1703-DI-152 | October 18, 2018 
Page 4 of 7 
had filed the proper papers in that case. Client 2 later settled that matter 
on his own. 
In February 2016, Client 2 sued Respondent for malpractice.  
Respondent failed to answer or appear for the default hearing and a 
$353,000 judgment was entered against him. As of the final hearing in this 
matter, Respondent has made no payments to Client 2 toward satisfaction 
of this judgment. 
Count 3. “Client 3” previously had hired another attorney (“Predecessor 
Counsel”) to bring action against a contractor or others in connection with 
construction defects in Client 3’s home. Predecessor Counsel failed to file 
suit, resulting in loss of some of Client 3’s claims. Client 3 then hired 
Respondent to represent him in contemplation of a similar construction-
defect suit against the general contractor, and also in contemplation of a 
legal malpractice action against Predecessor Counsel. Predecessor Counsel 
passed away, and Respondent did not take any further action against 
Predecessor Counsel or his estate. Client 3 additionally hired Respondent 
to file breach-of-contract actions against two other companies (“Company 
A” and “Company B”) that had provided services on the home. 
Respondent falsely told Client 3 that a suit against the general 
contractor had been filed and that the matter was proceeding in 
arbitration. Still later, Respondent falsely told Client 3 that all four of his 
cases had been filed in court. In December 2014, after receiving 
unsatisfactory information from Respondent about his cases, Client 3 went 
to the courthouse to conduct a search for his cases and discovered that no 
cases had been filed on his behalf. Client 3 then sought an “inventory” of 
his cases from Respondent, who did not respond. 
In March 2015, Client 3 submitted a grievance against Respondent to 
the Commission. In June 2015, just days after responding to the grievance, 
Respondent filed suits on behalf of Client 3 against Company A and 
Company B. Without Client 3’s knowledge or authorization, Respondent 
settled the suit against Company A in July 2015 and received a settlement 
check for $604. The suit against Company B proceeded to trial. 
Respondent failed to appear for a scheduled meeting with Client 3 in 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 98S00-1703-DI-152 | October 18, 2018 
Page 5 of 7 
advance of trial and failed to prepare adequately for trial, which resulted 
in judgment being rendered in favor of Company B. 
As the disciplinary investigation was pending, Respondent sent Client 
3 a letter in September 2015 that included numerous false statements 
regarding Respondent’s representation of Client 3 and a fictitious email 
purportedly sent by Respondent to Client 3 in July 2015. Enclosed with 
that letter was the settlement check Respondent had received from 
Company A. 
Discussion 
The Commission alleged, and the hearing officer concluded, that 
Respondent violated the following Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct: 
1.2(a): Failing to abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a 
matter. 
1.3: Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. 
1.4(a)(2): Failing to reasonably consult with a client about the means 
by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished. 
1.4(a)(3): Failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter.  
1.4(a)(4): Failing to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable 
requests for information. 
1.4(b): Failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary 
to permit a client to make informed decisions. 
1.5(c): Failing to have a contingent fee arrangement reduced to 
writing and signed by the client. 
1.8(a): Entering into a business transaction with a client unless the 
transaction is fair and reasonable, the terms are fully disclosed in 
writing, the client is given written advice of the desirability of 
seeking and the opportunity to seek the advice of independent 
counsel, and the client consents in writing to the transaction. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 98S00-1703-DI-152 | October 18, 2018 
Page 6 of 7 
3.3(a): Knowingly making or failing to correct a false statement of 
material fact made to a tribunal. 
3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules or an 
order of a court. 
4.4(a): Using means to represent a client that have no substantial 
purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person. 
8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation. 
8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice. 
When, as here, 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). On these facts, and as charged by the Commission, we decline to 
find a violation of Rule 3.3(a). In all other respects, we conclude that 
Respondent violated the rules as charged.     
The hearing officer found no mitigating factors, nor do we. The hearing 
officer found several aggravating factors, including among other things 
Respondent’s prior discipline,1 his pattern of dishonesty, and the 
significant financial harm suffered by Client 2 as a result of Respondent’s 
misconduct. We agree with those findings and need expound only briefly 
upon them. In Count 1, Respondent disobeyed a subpoena and caused 
Hanus, his girlfriend and legal secretary, to do the same by lying to her, 
actions that placed both of them in legal peril. Respondent significantly 
neglected his representations of Clients 2 and 3, lied to both of them at 
multiple junctures, and during the pendency of the disciplinary 
investigation fabricated an email purportedly sent to Client 3. 
Respondent’s dishonesty and neglect severely harmed Client 2 and led to 
a six-figure default judgment against Respondent for legal malpractice. 
                                                 
1 Respondent received a private administrative admonition in 2001. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 98S00-1703-DI-152 | October 18, 2018 
Page 7 of 7 
Respondent moved to Florida during the pendency of the malpractice suit 
and to date has made no payments toward satisfaction of that judgment. 
“In exercising our disciplinary authority, we have an obligation to 
protect the public and the profession from the tactics of unscrupulous 
lawyers.” Matter of Johnson, 53 N.E.3d 1177, 1180 (Ind. 2016). Respondent’s 
disregard of legal obligations, his neglect of clients’ cases and his own 
malpractice case, and his pervasive dishonesty, all persuade us that 
disbarment is warranted in this case. 
Conclusion 
Respondent already is under an order of suspension for failing to fulfill 
his continuing legal education requirements. 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 the proceeding are assessed against Respondent, and 
the hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged. 
All Justices concur. 
R E S P ON D E NT  P R O  S E  
Edward R. Hall 
North Fort Myers, Florida 
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 
Seth Pruden, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana