Title: In the Matter of Robert McMahon

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 22S-DI-279 
In the Matter of 
Robert McMahon, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: March 8, 2023 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Joel M. Schumm 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Justices Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur. 
Chief Justice Rush and Justice Massa dissent. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Mar 08 2023, 1:08 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-279 | March 8, 2023 
Page 2 of 5 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Robert McMahon, committed attorney 
misconduct by possessing child pornography. For this misconduct, we 
conclude that Respondent should be suspended for at least two years 
without automatic reinstatement. 
The matter is now before us 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 
2016 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court’s disciplinary 
jurisdiction. See Ind. Const. art. 7, § 4. 
Procedural Background and Facts  
The Commission filed a “Disciplinary Complaint” against Respondent 
on September 2, 2022. 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). 
In March 2022, Respondent was charged by grand jury indictment in 
the Northern District of Indiana with possession of child pornography 
involving a minor under the age of twelve. Respondent pled guilty as 
charged and was sentenced to twenty-four months of imprisonment, to be 
followed by three years of supervised release. 
Respondent has been under an order of interim suspension since 
October 6, 2022, as a result of his conviction. Matter of McMahon, 194 
N.E.3d 1124 (Ind. 2022).  
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-279 | March 8, 2023 
Page 3 of 5 
Discussion and Discipline 
We concur in the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclude that 
Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) by 
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on his honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. 
Respondent’s crime was insidious. Although we do not have a fully-
developed evidentiary record before us because Respondent pled guilty in 
federal court and defaulted on these disciplinary proceedings, 
Respondent’s conviction for possession of pornographic materials 
involving a child under twelve years of age nonetheless reflects a panoply 
of harms inflicted on an extremely vulnerable victim. “[T]hose . . . who 
view and/or make available to others child pornography harm the 
individual children depicted in several ways: (1) by perpetuating the 
abuse initiated by the creator of the material; (2) by invading the child’s 
privacy; and (3) by providing an economic motive for producers of child 
pornography.” Brown v. State, 912 N.E.2d 881, 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) 
(citing United States v. Norris, 159 F.3d 926 (5th Cir. 1998)). “[T]he materials 
produced are a permanent record of the children’s participation[.]” New 
York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 759 (1982). Especially in the age of digital 
media, the harms child pornography victims suffer will often haunt them 
for the rest of their lives. 
An attorney who would commit such a depraved act cannot be 
entrusted with the responsibilities that accompany a license to practice 
law and, at a minimum, should be required to demonstrate his 
professional fitness before ever again practicing law in this state. The 
question before us, quite frankly, is whether Respondent should be 
afforded that opportunity. 
The Commission sought, and the hearing officer recommended, 
imposition of a minimum two-year suspension without automatic 
reinstatement. This is consistent with the discipline imposed in Matter of 
Conn, 715 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. 1999), following that attorney’s federal child 
exploitation conviction for having accessed and downloaded child 
pornography, and with discipline imposed in cases arising from other 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-279 | March 8, 2023 
Page 4 of 5 
sexual offenses involving children. See, e.g., Matter of Haigh, 894 N.E.2d 550 
(Ind. 2008); Matter of Buker, 615 N.E.2d 436 (Ind. 1993); Matter of Kern, 551 
N.E.2d 454 (Ind. 1990). 
In light of this precedent, the hearing officer’s recommendation, and the 
Commission’s prayer for relief, we agree that Respondent should be 
suspended for at least two years without automatic reinstatement. Should 
Respondent seek reinstatement after that minimum period of suspension 
has elapsed, his petition will be granted only if he is able to prove his 
fitness to resume the practice of law by clear and convincing evidence, a 
burden that will be particularly steep given the severity of Respondent's 
misconduct. See Matter of Gutman, 599 N.E.2d 604, 608 (Ind. 1992) (“The 
more serious the misconduct, the greater its negative impact on future 
rehabilitation and eventual reinstatement, the greater Petitioner's burden 
of proof to overcome the implication of unfitness which is conjured by the 
misconduct”). 
Conclusion 
For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends 
Respondent from the practice of law for a period of not less than two 
years, without automatic reinstatement, effective immediately. 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, and satisfies the requirements for reinstatement 
of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18). 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. The 
hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged with the Court’s 
appreciation. 
Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur. 
Rush, C.J., and Massa, J., dissent regarding the sanction imposed, 
believing disbarment is warranted. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-279 | March 8, 2023 
Page 5 of 5 
N O  A P P EA RA N CE  FO R  T HE  RE SP O N D EN T  
 
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 
Mark A. Carnell, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana