Title: In the Matter of Clinton Andrew Hardesty

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 22S-DI-290 
In the Matter of 
Clinton A. Hardesty, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: February 27, 2023 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Robert C. Reiling 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Feb 27 2023, 11:29 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-290 | February 27, 2023 
Page 2 of 4 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Clinton Hardesty, committed attorney 
misconduct by repeatedly failing to appear for scheduled court hearings. 
For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be suspended 
for at least two years without automatic reinstatement. 
The 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 verified disciplinary complaint. Respondent’s 
2020 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 two-count “Disciplinary Complaint” against 
Respondent on August 23, 2022. Respondent 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 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). 
In Count 1, Respondent represented the defendant in a criminal case. 
At the first jury trial setting, Respondent arrived forty minutes late, 
claiming he had a flat tire. After jury selection and a lunch break, 
Respondent reported he might have been exposed to COVID over the 
previous weekend, and the trial court declared a mistrial. Respondent 
thereafter failed to appear for a pretrial conference; and at the second jury 
trial setting, Respondent failed to appear for the second day of trial. The 
trial court declared a second mistrial and ordered Respondent’s 
appearance to be withdrawn. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-290 | February 27, 2023 
Page 3 of 4 
In Count 2, Respondent was late to one hearing in a CHINS case and 
failed to appear at another hearing, claiming he was out of gas in another 
town. The court ordered Respondent’s appearance to be withdrawn. 
Respondent is currently suspended from the practice of law for 
noncooperation with the Commission’s investigations of grievances 
against him. He also is administratively suspended for noncompliance 
with his continuing legal education requirements. 
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: Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. 
3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules or an 
order of a court. 
8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice. 
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). 
In the short time since he was admitted to practice law in Indiana, 
Respondent has engaged in a pattern of misconduct and a dereliction of 
an attorney’s most fundamental duties. Respondent caused two separate 
mistrials in one case, and in both cases his repeated failures to appear for 
scheduled court proceedings squandered judicial resources and caused 
inconvenience for his clients and others. Respondent has failed to 
participate in these proceedings and has failed to cooperate with the 
Commission’s investigations. Respondent also has breached his duties to 
maintain accurate contact information with the Roll of Attorneys and to 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-290 | February 27, 2023 
Page 4 of 4 
accept service of process, which has necessitated the use of constructive 
service in this and other matters. See Admis. Disc. Rs. 2(a), 23(23.1). 
With these considerations in mind, we agree with the hearing officer 
that Respondent cannot be safely recommended to the public as a lawyer 
who can be trusted to handle clients’ legal affairs, and accordingly that a 
suspension without automatic reinstatement is warranted to protect the 
public and preserve the integrity of the legal profession. See Matter of 
White, 81 N.E.3d 211, 212 (Ind. 2017). 
Conclusion 
Respondent is already under multiple orders of suspension as noted 
above. For Respondent’s professional misconduct in this case, the Court 
suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of 
not less than two years, without automatic reinstatement, effective from 
the date of this opinion. 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, and the 
hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged with the Court’s 
appreciation. 
Rush, C.J., and Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur. 
N O  A P P EA RA N CE FO R  T HE  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  
Adrienne L. Meiring, Executive Director 
David E. Griffith, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana