Title: In the Matter of:  Thomas R. Philpot

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

RESPONDENT PRO SE 
Thomas R. Philpot 
St. John, Indiana 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary 
David B. Hughes, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 45S00-1304-DI-224 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THOMAS R. PHILPOT, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
_________________________________ 
 
 
May 19, 2015 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We find that Respondent, Thomas Philpot, engaged in attorney misconduct.  For this 
misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be suspended from the practice of law in this 
state for at least four years without automatic reinstatement.   
  
Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11), the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a “Statement of 
Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” stipulating agreed facts and proposed 
discipline.  The Respondent’s 2001 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court’s 
disciplinary jurisdiction.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.  The Court approves the agreement and 
proposed discipline.   
 
May 19 2015, 9:40 am
 
 
2 
Stipulated Facts 
 
 
In September 2011, Respondent was charged in the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Indiana with three counts of mail fraud and two counts of theft from a 
federally-funded program, all felonies.  In August 2012, Respondent was convicted by a jury on 
all counts.  After post-trial proceedings, Respondent was adjudicated guilty on the jury’s verdicts 
as to two counts of mail fraud and one count of theft.  Respondent’s convictions were affirmed 
on appeal.  U.S. v. Philpot, 733 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2013), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied.  
Respondent’s convictions resulted from his use of federal funds to pay himself impermissible 
bonuses in connection with work he performed in his capacity as the elected Clerk of Lake 
County, Indiana.     
 
 
Respondent has been under an order of interim suspension in this matter since June 15, 
2013.  See Matter of Philpot, 988 N.E.2d 263 (Ind. 2013).   
 
The parties agree that by committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on his honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 
8.4(b). 
 
The parties cite no facts in aggravation.  The Court, however, finds in aggravation that 
Respondent was an elected official who betrayed the public trust and violated both his oath of 
office and the oath of attorneys.  The parties cite the following facts in mitigation:  (1) 
Respondent’s lack of prior discipline; (2) Respondent’s cooperation with the Commission’s 
investigation and prompt reporting of criminal charges against him; and (3) Respondent’s 
repayment with interest of the monies in question prior to the filing of criminal charges against 
him. 
 
Discussion and Discipline 
 
 
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 
 
 
3 
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 current case, Respondent and the Commission propose that Respondent receive a 
suspension from the practice of law for a period of at least four years, without automatic 
reinstatement, effective on the date the conditional agreement is accepted.  Concluding that this 
is appropriate discipline under the circumstances, the Court approves the proposed discipline. 
 
Conclusion 
 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 
by committing crimes that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a 
lawyer.  For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the 
practice of law in this state for a period of not less than four years, without automatic 
reinstatement, beginning on 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 all applicable fees and costs, fulfills the duties of a suspended 
attorney, and satisfies the requirements for reinstatement of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4) 
and (18).  Reinstatement is discretionary and requires clear and convincing evidence of the 
attorney’s remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law.  See Admis. Disc. R. 23(4)(b). 
 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.  The hearing officer 
appointed in this case is discharged. 
 
All Justices concur except Rush, C.J., and Dickson, J., who dissent, believing Respondent should 
be disbarred.