Title: In the Matter of Robert E. Lehman

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

RESPONDENT 
Robert E. Lehman, pro se 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 49S00-0808-DI-471 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ROBERT E. LEHMAN, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Cynthia S. Emkes 
_________________________________ 
 
 
March 2, 2009 
 
Per Curiam. 
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."  We find that Respondent, Robert E. Lehman, engaged in 
attorney misconduct by committing the federal felony of willfully making a false tax return.  
    
 
The Respondent's 1977 admission to this state's bar subjects him to this Court's discipli-
nary jurisdiction.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.  For his misconduct, we find that Respondent 
should be disbarred from the practice of law in this state. 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Mar 02 2009, 1:40 pm
 
2 
 
Background 
On March 7, 2008, a three-count information was filed in federal court against 
Respondent charging him with willfully understating his income under penalties of perjury on 
federal income tax returns for 2002, 2003, and 2004.  On August 8, 2008, Respondent pled guilty 
to one count of willfully making a false tax return, a federal felony.  See 26 U.S.C. sec. 7206(1).  
He was fined $10,000 and sentenced to eight months in prison, followed by one year of 
supervised release.  The remaining two counts were dismissed.    
 
On August 27, 2008, the Commission filed a "Notice of Guilty Finding and Request for 
Suspension" pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11.1)(a).  Respondent filed no 
response, and the Court entered an order of interim suspension on September 30, 2008.  The 
Commission filed a verified complaint on September 17, 2008.  Respondent did not appear and 
filed no answer.  The hearing officer filed her report on November 13, 2008, and neither party 
filed a petition for review.  The hearing officer found Respondent's prior disciplinary history, 
discussed below, and his selfish motive to be significant facts in aggravation.  The hearing 
officer found no facts in mitigation.    
 
Respondent has been disciplined on three prior occasions:   
 Matter of Lehman, 690 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1997).  Respondent failed to disclose to 
personal injury client, with whom he had a contingent fee agreement, that he 
would retain in addition one-third of subrogation amounts owed by client to his 
insurers.  The Court imposed public reprimand for violation of Professional 
Conduct Rules 1.5, 8.4(c), and 1.7(b).   
 
 Matter of Lehman, 815 N.E.2d 116 (Ind. 2004).  During a trial in which he 
represented the plaintiffs, Respondent  (1) showed  jury witness questions to his 
witness before the judge ruled on opposing counsel's objection, resulting in a 
mistrial;  and (2) removed from opposing counsel's table, despite counsel's 
objection, a book that contained opposing counsel's notes concerning cross-
examination of Respondent's witness.  The Court approved agreed public 
reprimand for violation of Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d).   
 
 Matter of Lehman, 861 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. 2007).  While representing clients in a 
personal injury action, Respondent told opposing counsel his clients wanted to 
report opposing counsel for unethical conduct, but if opposing counsel agreed to a 
continuance of the trial, Respondent thought he could dissuade his clients.   The 
 
3 
Court approved agreed suspension of 120 days with automatic reinstatement for 
violation of Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d).  
  
 
Discussion 
When, as here, neither the Commission nor the respondent 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).  Based on the hearing 
officer's finding, the Court concludes that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional 
Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct: 
 Rule 8.4(b):  Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's hones-
ty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. 
 
 Rule 8.4(c):  Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresen-
tation. 
 
 
Turning to the issue of appropriate discipline for Respondent's violations, we note that 
the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (as amended in 1992), 
("Standards") provide: 
 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when: 
  
(a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct a necessary element of which 
includes . . . false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropria-
tion, or theft; . . .  or 
 
(b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the law-
yer's fitness to practice. 
 
Standard 5.11.  In addition, the Standards list the following as aggravating circumstances:  prior 
disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, and illegal conduct.  Standard 9.22. 
 
Respondent pled guilty to a federal felony involving false swearing and 
misrepresentation, he acted out of a selfish motivation, and he has a substantial disciplinary 
history.  In addition, he has neither challenged the hearing officer's report nor argued any 
mitigating facts.  Under these circumstances, the Court concludes disbarment is warranted.  See 
 
4 
Matter of Gibbs, 271 N.E.2d 729 (Ind. 1971) (attorney's conviction of federal income tax evasion 
warranted disbarment).    
 
Conclusion 
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.  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, to 
the parties or their respective attorneys, to all other entities entitled to notice under Admission 
and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d), and to Thomson/West for publication in the bound volumes of this 
Court's decisions. 
 
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson and Boehm, JJ., concur. 
Sullivan and Rucker, JJ., concur, except that they would impose a three-year suspension without 
automatic reinstatement.