Title: In the Matter of:  Narles W. Coleman

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

RESPONDENT PRO SE 
Narles W. Coleman 
Chicago, Illinois 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Director 
Seth T. Pruden, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 98S00-1301-DI-52 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NARLES W. COLEMAN, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Jeryl F. Leach 
_________________________________ 
 
 
January 24, 2017 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We find that Respondent, Narles Coleman, engaged in numerous acts of attorney 
misconduct in connection with his representation of a client and subsequent civil suit against that 
client, and by committing domestic battery against his wife.  For this misconduct, we conclude 
that Respondent should be suspended from the practice of law in this state for at least two 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 “Amended 
Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action.”  Respondent’s 2002 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
Jan 24 2017, 12:59 pm
 
 
2 
 
Procedural Background and Facts 
 
The Commission filed a two-count “Amended Verified Complaint for Disciplinary 
Action” against Respondent on July 14, 2014.  Following a hearing, the hearing officer filed his 
report on September 30, 2016.  Respondent belatedly filed a “response” to the hearing officer’s 
report on November 7, 2016.1   
 
 
Count 1.  In 2006, “Client” was charged with class C felony child molestation.  Shortly 
thereafter, Client received a letter from Respondent soliciting employment, stating he could give 
the best possible representation for a reasonable fee.  Respondent falsely represented that he was 
associated with “The Cochran Firm,” originally founded by Johnnie Cochran.  In fact, 
Respondent had minimal experience in criminal law and no experience in child molesting cases.  
Client agreed to hire Respondent for a flat fee of $4,000, which Client paid in part.  Over the 
next several months, Client had difficulty communicating with Respondent.  Respondent failed 
to keep Client informed about events in the case; made decisions about the case without 
consulting Client; failed to appear at a pretrial conference; misinformed Client that results of a 
polygraph would not be shown to the prosecutor; deceived Client into signing a new fee 
agreement calling for a fee of $200 per hour; and negotiated a plea agreement without consulting 
Client, despite Client’s prior instructions that he did not want to enter a plea agreement.  Client 
continued to maintain his innocence and refused to sign the plea agreement. 
 
 
Following these events, Client fired Respondent and hired new counsel.  Respondent did 
not withdraw his representation or forward a copy of Client’s file to new counsel until after a 
show cause proceeding was initiated against him.  The criminal charge against Client ultimately 
was dismissed. 
 
                                                 
1 Where no party files a petition for review or brief on sanctions challenging the hearing officer’s 
findings, “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).  Where review is timely sought, we review de novo 
all matters presented to the Court, with the hearing officer’s findings receiving emphasis due to the 
unique opportunity for direct observation of witnesses.  See Matter of Thomas, 30 N.E.3d 704, 708 (Ind. 
2015).  In this case, each standard of review leads us to the same result. 
 
 
3 
 
Respondent sent Client a bill for over $9,000 and filed a civil suit to collect the balance 
owing, including demands for interest of close to 25% per annum.  The bill was predicated on 
the new fee agreement Respondent had induced Client to sign under false pretenses and included 
inflated hourly billing for various events in Client’s case for which Respondent performed 
minimal or no work and various other activities of little or no value to Client’s case.  Respondent 
also sought to collect from Client additional sums for time allegedly spent, and expenses 
allegedly incurred, in connection with withdrawing from Client’s case and filing the civil suit 
against Client.  Client filed a counterclaim.  At a deposition of a witness Respondent named, he 
and the witness concealed the fact that she was his wife.   The trial court eventually entered 
judgment in favor of Client for close to $11,000.  Respondent appealed and filed a motion to 
compel the court reporter to complete the transcript, even though he had not made payment 
arrangements.  His appeal was dismissed for failure to make payment arrangements. 
 
 
Count 2.  In October 2012, Respondent was charged with felony and misdemeanor counts 
of domestic battery stemming from allegations that Respondent struck his wife in the presence of 
four children.  Following a jury trial in July 2013, Respondent was convicted of domestic battery 
as a class A misdemeanor. 
 
 
The hearing officer found the following facts in aggravation: (1) Respondent’s acts of 
misconduct were numerous, continuing, and impacted many people; (2) Respondent’s conduct 
resulted in injuries to Client, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession; (3) 
Respondent’s misconduct involved intentional, knowing, and negligent actions; (4) Respondent’s 
misconduct resulted in both actual and potential harm; and (5) the facts of this case reflect a 
long-term pattern of serious rule violations.  The hearing officer found Respondent’s lack of 
prior discipline to be a fact in mitigation. 
 
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: 
 
1.1:  Failing to provide competent representation. 
 
 
 
4 
1.2(a):  Failing to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of 
representation. 
 
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(b):  Failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to 
make informed decisions. 
 
1.5(a):  Making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an unreasonable fee. 
 
1.5(b):  Failing to communicate the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which a 
client will be responsible before or within a reasonable time after commencing the 
representation. 
 
1.8(a):  Entering into a business transaction with a client (a revised fee agreement) unless 
the transaction is fair and reasonable, the terms are fully disclosed in writing, the 
client is given written advice of the desirability of seeking and the opportunity to seek 
the advice of independent counsel, and the client consents in writing to the 
transaction. 
 
1.16(d):  After the termination of representation, failing to protect a client’s interests and 
failing promptly to return to a client case file materials to which the client is entitled.  
 
3.1:  Asserting a position for which there is no non-frivolous basis in law or fact. 
 
3.2:  Failing to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of a client. 
 
3.3(a)(3):  Offering evidence the lawyer knows to be false, and failing to take reasonable 
remedial efforts after becoming aware that a witness called by the lawyer offered 
false material evidence. 
 
3.4(c):  Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal. 
 
4.1(a):  Knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a third person in the 
course of representing a client. 
 
7.2(b) (2007):  Using a public communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading, 
deceptive, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim. 
 
7.2(c)(3) (2007):  Making a statement intended or likely to create an unjustified 
expectation. 
 
7.3(c) (2007):  Solicitation of professional employment without the words “Advertising 
Material.” 
 
 
5 
8.4(b):  Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. 
 
8.4(c):  Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. 
 
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). 
 
 
Weighing in Respondent’s favor are his lack of prior discipline and the fact that most of 
the misconduct at issue in this case involved a single client.  That said though, Respondent’s 
misconduct with respect to Client was wide-ranging, pervasive, retaliatory, and deceptive at 
multiple junctures.  Respondent used his wife in an attempt to deceive Client in subsequent 
litigation and later committed domestic battery against his wife.  Respondent’s systemic 
malfeasance in connection with his representation of Client, his criminal conduct, and his less-
than-effective self-representation during most of these disciplinary proceedings reflect 
exceedingly poorly on his fitness to practice law.   
 
After careful consideration of this matter, we conclude that Respondent should be 
suspended for a period of at least two years, after which he may be reinstated only after proving 
by clear and convincing evidence his remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice.  See 
Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(b) (2017).   
 
Conclusion 
 
Respondent already is under an order of suspension for dues nonpayment and for failing 
to fulfill his continuing legal education requirements.  For Respondent’s professional 
misconduct, 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.  
Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline 
 
 
6 
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, cures the causes of all 
suspensions then in effect, 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. 
 
All Justices concur.