Title: In the Matter of: Anonymous

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT  
Alice M. Morical 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary 
Paula Cardoza-Jones, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court 
_________________________________ 
No. 79S00-1508-DI-512 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
ANONYMOUS, 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
Attorney Discipline Action 
_________________________________ 
October 15, 2015 
Per Curiam. 
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 admission to this state’s bar subjects her to this Court’s 
disciplinary jurisdiction. 
The Court approves the agreement and finds that Respondent engaged in attorney 
misconduct by communicating ex parte with a judge without authorization to do so.  For this 
misconduct, we find that Respondent should receive a private reprimand. 
Oct 15 2015, 10:44 am
 
 
2 
Stipulated Facts 
 
 
Respondent was hired by the maternal grandparents of a young child who were 
concerned about the child’s welfare.  At the time, the child was living with the grandparents in 
White County, the putative father’s paternity had not yet been established, and the child’s mother 
allegedly was an unemployed drug addict who was unable to properly care for the child but 
nevertheless was threatening to remove the child from the grandparents’ home. 
 
 
On June 11, 2014, Respondent prepared an “Emergency Petition” seeking to have the 
grandparents appointed as the child’s temporary guardians.  Respondent dispatched an associate 
attorney in her office to the White County Courthouse with instructions to present the 
Emergency Petition for judicial consideration.  The associate attorney presented the Emergency 
Petition to the judge, who reviewed the Emergency Petition and signed the proposed order 
appointing the grandparents as temporary co-guardians of the child.  The order was directed to be 
served on the child’s mother and putative father. 
 
 
Respondent did not provide advance notice to the mother or the putative father before 
causing the Emergency Petition to be presented to the judge.1  Respondent also did not comply 
with Trial Rule 65(B), which required Respondent to certify to the court the efforts (if any) made 
to give notice to adverse parties and the reasons supporting a claim that notice should not be 
required. 
 
 
The parties cite no facts in aggravation.  Facts cited in mitigation are: (1) Respondent has 
no prior discipline; (2) she fully cooperated with the Commission; and (3) her character and 
reputation within the Tippecanoe County legal community is good. 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 The parties agree that under the circumstances of this case, the actions of the associate attorney are 
attributable to Respondent pursuant to Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 5.1(c). 
 
 
3 
Discussion 
 
 
Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 3.5(b) provides in relevant part that an attorney shall 
not communicate ex parte with a judge during a proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or 
court order. 
 
 
The question of authority in this case hinges upon Trial Rule 65(B), which governs the 
type of emergency judicial relief sought by Respondent on the grandparents’ behalf.  See Matter 
of Anonymous, 729 N.E.2d 566, 568 (Ind. 2000).  That rule provides that a temporary restraining 
order may be granted without notice to the adverse party only if, among other things, “the 
applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to 
give notice and the reasons supporting [her] claim that notice should not be required.”  Ind. Trial 
Rule 65(B)(2).  An attorney’s failure to comply with this rule renders the subject proceeding an 
unauthorized ex parte communication prohibited under Professional Conduct Rule 3.5(b).2 
 
 
To be sure, Trial Rule 65(B) contemplates that there will be situations justifying the 
issuance of temporary emergency relief without notice, and the availability of such extraordinary 
relief can be particularly critical in domestic relations or custodial cases where the immediate 
safety and well-being of a child or domestic partner is shown to be at demonstrable risk.  See 
Matter of Anonymous, 786 N.E.2d 1185, 1189 (Ind. 2003).  We do not wish to discourage 
attorneys from seeking, or judges from issuing, such relief where appropriate.  Nevertheless, 
when such relief is sought, the basic safeguards provided by Trial Rule 65(B) are essential to due 
process and must be followed.     
 
 
In sum, while Respondent’s intentions regarding the welfare of her clients’ grandchild 
may have been good, they did not justify dispensing with the mandatory procedures designed to 
protect the rights of other parties with legal interests at stake in the proceeding.  See Anonymous, 
729 N.E.2d at 569.  For Respondent’s misconduct in this case, we agree with the parties that a 
private reprimand is warranted.     
                                                 
2 Judges have a similar ethical obligation and likewise must ensure compliance with Trial Rule 65(B).  
Ind. Judicial Conduct Rule 2.9(A); Matter of Kern, 774 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. 2002); Matter of Jacobi, 715 
N.E.2d 873 (Ind. 1999). 
 
 
4 
Conclusion 
 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated Professional Conduct Rule 3.5(b) by 
communicating ex parte with a judge without authorization to do so.  The agreement submitted 
by Respondent and the Commission to resolve this case will be accepted by separate order, and 
Respondent will be privately reprimanded.  The costs of this proceeding are assessed against 
Respondent. 
 
All Justices concur.