Title: In the Matter of Robert Dale Cheesebourough

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 20S-DI-377 
In the Matter of 
Robert Cheesebourough, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: June 10, 2021 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer William J. Nelson 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jun 10 2021, 3:17 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-DI-377 | June 10, 2021 
Page 2 of 5 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Robert Cheesebourough, committed attorney 
misconduct by neglecting one client’s case, making improper threats in 
another case, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary process. For 
this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be suspended for at 
least one year 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 
1994 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 June 16, 2020, and we appointed a hearing officer. 
Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer issued his report on 
March 31, 2021, finding Respondent committed violations as set forth 
below. 
No petition for review of the hearing officer’s report has been filed. 
When the findings of the hearing officer are not challenged, “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. Respondent represented members of a church’s board of 
directors in an action in Madison Superior Court brought by other 
members of the church, who were represented by “Opposing Counsel.” 
Respondent and his clients believed the opposing parties had improperly 
used church funds to pay Opposing Counsel. Respondent sent a cease-
and-desist letter to Opposing Counsel demanding, among other things, 
that the suit be dropped and that the funds used to pay Opposing Counsel 
be returned to the church. In that letter, Respondent threatened to file a 
disciplinary grievance against Opposing Counsel and the judge, and a 
criminal complaint against Opposing Counsel, unless Opposing Counsel 
and the opposing parties complied with Respondent’s demands. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-DI-377 | June 10, 2021 
Page 3 of 5 
Respondent failed to timely respond to the Commission’s inquiries 
during its investigation of this matter, leading to the initiation of show 
cause proceedings in this Court. Those proceedings eventually were 
dismissed after Respondent belatedly complied.1 
Count 2. “Plaintiff” obtained a $720,000 default judgment against 
“Defendant” in 2017 and initiated proceedings supplemental. Defendant 
hired Respondent in February 2018, and Respondent successfully moved 
to set aside the default judgment. Thereafter, Respondent failed to comply 
with discovery, respond to a motion to compel, or appear at a hearing on 
the motion, all of which led to a judgment that essentially reinstated the 
default judgment of $720,000. 
Respondent then filed another motion to set aside the judgment. The 
court granted the motion but imposed sanctions in the sum of $4,331.25 in 
attorney’s fees for Plaintiff. Another motion to compel discovery was 
filed, at which time Respondent finally complied. Still another motion to 
compel was filed (and granted) after neither Respondent nor Defendant 
paid the attorney fee sanction. Several months later, Plaintiff moved for 
summary judgment. Respondent failed to file a response or appear at the 
hearing on the motion. The court granted summary judgment in the 
amount of $866,693 plus attorney fees of $44,619. 
Defendant unsuccessfully tried several times to contact Respondent or 
meet with him. Defendant fired Respondent, filed a grievance against 
him, and eventually settled the lawsuit with Plaintiff directly.  
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 All told, seven separate show cause proceedings have been initiated against Respondent 
since 2017, one of which resulted in a noncooperation suspension and another one of which 
remains pending. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-DI-377 | June 10, 2021 
Page 4 of 5 
1.3: Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. 
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. 
8.1(b): Knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for 
information from a disciplinary authority. 
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). 
Respondent has prior discipline for similar misconduct and an 
extensive history of noncooperation with disciplinary investigations. 
Respondent also has been administratively suspended seven times for 
noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements and 
nonpayment of dues and disciplinary costs. All of this, save for one 
administrative suspension, has transpired within the last few years. 
Respondent also engaged in a pattern of dishonesty toward the hearing 
officer during these proceedings, and his testimony during the final 
hearing – including his assertions he was unable to stay awake long 
enough to claim certified mailings of the disciplinary grievances filed 
against him – demonstrates an indifference to fulfilling even the most 
basic responsibilities of an attorney. We find ample support for the 
hearing officer’s recommendation that Respondent be suspended for at 
least one year and thereafter remain suspended until he can prove clearly 
and convincingly that he is fit to resume practice, and neither party has 
filed a brief urging a different sanction be imposed.  
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-DI-377 | June 10, 2021 
Page 5 of 5 
Conclusion 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated Professional Conduct 
Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d). For Respondent’s 
professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the 
practice of law in this state for a period of not less than one year, without 
automatic reinstatement, beginning July 7, 2021. Respondent shall not 
undertake any new legal matters between service of this opinion and the 
effective date of the suspension, and 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 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 David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
R E S P ON D E NT  P R O  S E  
Robert Cheesebourough 
Whitestown, Indiana 
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  
Hon. Robert B. Mrzlack, Interim Executive Director 
Seth T. Pruden, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana