Title: In the Matter of Ralph Winston Staples

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 21S-DI-476 
In the Matter of 
Ralph W. Staples 
Respondent 
Decided: November 2, 2022 
Attorney Discipline Action 
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
Nov 02 2022, 8:56 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-DI-476 | November 2, 2022 
Page 2 of 6 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Ralph W. Staples, engaged in attorney 
misconduct by dividing attorney fees without his client’s permission, 
disobeying court orders, making false statements to the Disciplinary 
Commission, and failing to timely respond to the Commission’s demands 
for information. For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should 
be suspended for not less than one year, without automatic reinstatement. 
The matter is now before us on the report of the hearing officer this 
Court appointed to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission’s verified disciplinary complaint. Respondent’s 
1987 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court’s disciplinary 
jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. 
Procedural Background and Facts 
In October 2018, Respondent was hired to represent “Client,” who was 
facing criminal charges for a domestic battery incident that also prompted 
related paternity and Child in Need of Services (CHINS) proceedings. 
Based on a referral, Client and his mother met with Respondent’s office 
manager to hire Respondent. Respondent did not attend the meeting. At 
the meeting, Client requested that Respondent exclusively represent him 
in all three cases, and Client’s mother agreed to pay a total of $11,500—an 
initial $2,500 retainer fee and monthly installments thereafter. The parties 
did not execute a contract, retainer agreement, or any other written 
instrument. Additionally, the parties did not agree, in writing or 
otherwise, that any other attorney would represent Client or that 
Respondent would divide his legal fees with anyone. Following the 
meeting, neither Client nor his mother received a retention or engagement 
letter. 
Respondent filed an appearance in Client’s criminal case, as did solo 
practitioner Matthew Draving, who shared office space with Respondent 
but with whom Respondent had no official firm affiliation or partnership. 
When Respondent failed to appear at a January 2019 pretrial conference, 
Client contacted Respondent’s office and Draving was sent to represent 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-DI-476 | November 2, 2022 
Page 3 of 6 
Client. Draving again appeared at Client’s deposition instead of 
Respondent. Days after the deposition, Respondent filed a motion to 
withdraw, which the trial court granted. Respondent never directly spoke 
with Client about his case or appeared in court on Client’s behalf. 
By the time Respondent withdrew, Client’s mother had paid him 
$4,300, $1,148 of which Respondent had paid to Draving without consent 
from Client or his mother. Client’s mother requested a full refund from 
Respondent but never received one. So, Client’s mother sued Respondent 
in case number 49D11-1911-CC-46864 (“Refund Case”). 
Respondent never answered the complaint, and default judgment was 
entered against him. Following the default judgment, the trial court 
ordered Respondent to produce financial documents, but Respondent did 
not comply with the court’s order or appear at the show cause hearing 
meant to address his failure. The trial court found Respondent in 
contempt and awarded Client’s mother attorney’s fees. Respondent has 
yet to pay the ordered judgment and fees. 
Respondent’s conduct was referred to the Disciplinary Commission, 
which began investigating. Respondent answered the Commission’s 
inquiries only after this Court ordered him to show cause why he should 
not be suspended from the practice of law for his noncooperation. In his 
eventual response, Respondent claimed that it is not his “custom, habit, or 
practice…to fail to respond to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary 
Commission when required to do so.…” Yet in two prior instances, 
Respondent had to be ordered to show cause due to his failures to 
cooperate with Commission investigations. And even here, after he filed 
his response, this Court yet again had to issue a show cause order for 
Respondent to comply with a subpoena duces tecum for a copy of Client’s 
case file. 
Subsequently, the Commission filed a disciplinary complaint alleging 
Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.5(e), 3.4(c), and 
8.1(a) and (b). Following a March 2022 final hearing and submission of 
proposed findings by the parties, the hearing officer issued a report 
finding that Respondent violated all four rules and recommending an 18-
month suspension without automatic reinstatement. The hearing officer 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-DI-476 | November 2, 2022 
Page 4 of 6 
also recommended that satisfaction of the judgment entered against 
Respondent be a condition of his reinstatement.  Neither party has 
petitioned for review of the hearing officer’s report. When neither party 
challenges the hearing officer’s findings, “we accept and adopt those 
findings but reserve final judgment as to misconduct and sanctions.” 
Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 1257, 1258 (Ind. 2000). 
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: 
1.5(e): Failing to obtain a client’s approval of a fee division between 
lawyers who are not in the same firm; 
3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules or an 
order of a court; 
8.1(a): Knowingly making a false statement of material fact to the 
Disciplinary Commission in connection with a disciplinary matter; 
and 
8.1(b): Failing to respond in a timely manner to the Commission’s 
demands for information. 
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).  
We have disciplined Respondent twice in the past for neglecting clients’ 
cases, failing to appear at hearings, and disregarding court orders. We 
publicly reprimanded him in one of the cases and suspended him with 
automatic reinstatement in the other. See Matter of Staples, 66 N.E.3d 939 
(Ind. 2017); Matter of Staples, 969 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. 2012). After 35 years of 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-DI-476 | November 2, 2022 
Page 5 of 6 
practice, and despite these gentler attempts at correction, Respondent 
continues to flout judicial authority and violate his clients’ trust.  
In this case, Respondent made no meaningful effort to represent Client. 
Not only did he foist representation of Client on an unaffiliated attorney 
without Client’s knowledge or assent, but for three years he has refused to 
refund Client the fees he collected but did not earn—even after judgment 
was entered against him in a separate lawsuit. Respondent’s obstinance 
and dishonesty continued during these disciplinary proceedings, during 
which he made a false statement to the Commission, missed a hearing, 
disregarded orders from the hearing officer, and generally continued his 
pattern of noncooperation. 
To protect the public from ongoing harm and to preserve the integrity 
of the legal profession and system, we have suspended attorneys without 
automatic reinstatement when they serially neglect their clients. See, e.g., 
Matter of Roberts, 727 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. 2000) (suspending attorney for at 
least one year for serial neglect of client affairs); Matter of Daniels, 39 
N.E.3d 639 (Ind. 2015) (suspending attorney with a history of neglecting 
client cases and failing to cooperate with Commission investigations for at 
least one year without automatic reinstatement for neglecting two 
additional client matters). At this point, Respondent’s continued 
misconduct requires more substantial discipline than we have previously 
imposed on him. Thus, we suspend him from the practice of law for not 
less than one year, without automatic reinstatement. Additionally, he 
must satisfy the judgment entered again him in the Refund Case as a 
necessary condition of any future request for reinstatement. 
Conclusion 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated Indiana Professional 
Conduct Rules 1.5(e), 3.4(c), 8.1(a), and 8.1(b). For Respondent’s 
professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the 
practice of law in this state for a period not less than one year, without 
automatic reinstatement, beginning December 6, 2022. Respondent shall 
not undertake any new legal matters between service of this opinion and 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-DI-476 | November 2, 2022 
Page 6 of 6 
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 these 
proceedings, satisfies the judgment against him in the Refund Case, 
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. 
R E S P ON D E NT  P R O  S E  
Ralph W. Staples 
Indianapolis, 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  
Adrienne L. Meiring, Executive Director 
Akash Burney, Staff Attorney 
Julie E. Bennett, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana