Title: In the Matter of: Beau J. White

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENT  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Director 
Julie E. Bennett, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 27S00-1703-DI-131 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BEAU J. WHITE, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer R. Scott Hayes 
_________________________________ 
 
 
September 5, 2017 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We find that Respondent, Beau White, committed attorney misconduct in connection 
with his representation of a client and by failing to cooperate with the disciplinary process.  For 
this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be suspended for at least three years 
without automatic reinstatement.   
  
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 1999 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this 
Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.   
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Sep 05 2017, 11:58 am
 
 
2 
Procedural Background and Facts 
 
The Commission filed a “Verified Disciplinary Complaint” against Respondent on March 
8, 2017.  Respondent was served with the complaint but 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).   
 
Count 1.  Respondent was hired to represent “Client 1” in a criminal case.  Thereafter, 
Respondent did very little work on the case, was unable to be reached by Client 1 until 
immediately prior to trial, and appeared on the morning of trial with very little material.  Client 1 
indicated to the judge she was not comfortable proceeding with Respondent and explained why.  
The judge continued the matter even though a jury panel was waiting outside the courtroom.  
The judge also filed a request for investigation of Respondent with the Commission.  Respondent 
failed to timely respond to the Commission’s inquiries during that investigation, leading to the 
initiation of show cause proceedings. 
 
Count 2.  Respondent was hired to represent “Client 2” with respect to paternity and child 
support issues.  Client 2 was unable to reach Respondent after the retainer was paid.  Eventually, 
Client 2 filed a request for investigation of Respondent with the Commission.  Respondent failed 
to timely respond to the Commission’s inquiries, leading to the initiation of additional show 
cause proceedings.1 
                                                 
1 All told, nine separate show cause proceedings have been initiated against Respondent since 2014, the 
latter five of which remain pending.  Also separately pending against Respondent is a “Notice of Finding 
of Guilt and Request for Suspension” filed by the Commission in Case No. 27S00-1706-DI-416, based on 
Respondent’s felony drug conviction earlier this year. 
 
 
3 
The hearing officer cited as aggravating factors Respondent’s disciplinary history and his 
substantial experience in the practice of law, found no evidence in mitigation, and recommended 
that Respondent be suspended without automatic reinstatement. 
 
Discussion 
 
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.  
 
1.4(a)(4):  Failing to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information. 
 
8.1(b):  Failing to respond in a timely manner to the Commission’s demands for 
information. 
 
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, see Matter of White, 969 N.E.2d 
3, modified by Matter of White, 970 N.E.2d 145 (Ind. 2012), and was on probation for that 
misconduct during the period at issue here.  Respondent has a lengthy record of past and present 
noncooperation with various disciplinary investigations initiated against him, comprising four 
concluded and five pending show cause proceedings.  Respondent has been administratively 
suspended six times since 2008 – four times for nonpayment of dues and twice for failure to pay 
costs – and he is currently suspended for failure to pay costs.  Respondent has progressively 
absented himself from the multiple show cause proceedings against him and has wholly failed to 
participate in these disciplinary proceedings.  All of these factors persuade us that a lengthy 
 
 
4 
suspension without automatic reinstatement is necessary to protect the public and preserve the 
integrity of the legal profession.   
 
 
Conclusion 
 
Respondent already is under suspension for failure to pay costs imposed in a separate 
disciplinary matter.  For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent 
from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than three years, without automatic 
reinstatement, effective immediately.  Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended 
attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).  The costs of this proceeding are assessed 
against Respondent, and the hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged. 
 
Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
 
Rush, C.J., and David, J., dissent, believing that the Respondent is deserving of a significant 
period of suspension or disbarment.