NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENT ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT 

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

G. Michael Witte, Executive Director

Rachel B. Gallagher, Staff Attorney

Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________

No. 61S00-1703-DI-153

IN THE MATTER OF:

JOHN DOWNEY PIERCE,

Respondent.

_________________________________

Attorney Discipline Action

Hearing Officer John A. Rader

_________________________________

August 31, 2017

Per Curiam.

We find that Respondent, John Downey Pierce, committed attorney misconduct by, 

among other things, mismanaging his trust account, converting client funds, disobeying a court 

order, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary process. For this misconduct, we conclude

that Respondent should be disbarred. 

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. 
2

Procedural Background and Facts

The Commission filed a “Disciplinary Complaint” against Respondent on March 17, 

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 Disciplinary 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. In September 2015, Respondent commingled personal and client funds in his 

trust account and wrote three checks from his trust account for personal expenses, which resulted 

in an overdraft. The Commission began investigating and requested client ledgers. Respondent 

kept insufficient client ledgers, and the documents he eventually produced for the Commission 

were false and failed to reflect the source of all funds deposited into the account or sequences of 

transactions affecting the respective clients.

Count 2. On April 5, 2016, Respondent failed to appear in court for his clients’ 

uncontested adoption hearing. The judge admonished Respondent and ordered him to complete 

the required paperwork for his clients, which Respondent assured the judge he would do. When 

Respondent failed to complete the paperwork, the judge scheduled a show cause hearing for May 

5. Respondent appeared at that hearing, which then was continued to May 18 to give 

Respondent time to comply with the court’s orders. Respondent did not appear at the May 18 

hearing, but filed a motion to continue that morning, which was denied. The judge filed a 

grievance with the Commission, and in his response to the grievance Respondent admitted the 

judge’s assertions were accurate.
3

Count 3. In July 2016, the Commission demanded a response from Respondent with 

respect to another grievance. Respondent failed to respond, leading to the initiation of show 

cause proceedings.1

The hearing officer cited as aggravating factors Respondent’s disciplinary history, his 

dishonest and selfish motive, his pattern of misconduct comprising multiple offenses, the 

criminal nature of some of his misconduct, his deceptive practices during the Commission’s 

investigation, his substantial experience in the practice of law, and his failure to acknowledge the 

wrongfulness of his actions. 

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.

1.15(a): Failing to create or maintain complete records of client trust account funds, and 

commingling client and attorney funds. 

3.2: Failing to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of a client

3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying a court order and an obligation under the rules or an order

of a court

8.1(a): Knowingly making a false statement of material fact to the Disciplinary 

Commission in connection with a disciplinary matter.2

8.1(b): Failing to respond in a timely manner to the Commission’s demands for 

information.

 

1 All told, Respondent was the subject of five different show cause proceedings initiated in 2016, the 

latter three of which resulted in noncooperation suspensions. Following Respondent’s continued 

noncooperation, his suspension in Case No. 61S00-1608-DI-441 was converted to an indefinite 

suspension, which remains in effect.

2

In Count 1 the hearing officer’s report cites Rule 8.1(b), but the conduct described as a basis for the 

violation in that count is encompassed by Rule 8.1(a).
4

8.4(a) and (b): Committing a criminal act (conversion or attempted conversion) 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.

In addition, we conclude that Respondent violated the following Indiana Admission and 

Discipline Rules:3

23(29)(a)(3): Failing to create, maintain, or retain accurate client ledgers for trust 

accounts.

23(29)(a)(4): Commingling client funds with other funds of the attorney and failing to 

create or retain sufficiently detailed records. 

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 James, 70 N.E.3d 346, 348 (Ind. 2017). 

Respondent’s misconduct involved dishonesty, disregard of court orders, and conversion 

of client funds, all serious transgressions. Further, Respondent progressively absented himself 

from the multiple show cause proceedings against him and has wholly failed to participate in 

these disciplinary proceedings. We have disbarred other attorneys who have demonstrated 

similar unfitness to be entrusted with the responsibilities that accompany a license to practice law 

in this state. See, e.g., id. at 349; Matter of Ouellette, 37 N.E.3d 490 (Ind. 2015). We 

acknowledge that Respondent may not have stolen as much money as some other disbarred 

attorneys, or been as pervasively dishonest or neglectful, but this offers faint praise. The nature 

of Respondent’s misconduct, coupled with his serial noncooperation and his failure to participate 

in these proceedings, persuade us that disbarment is the appropriate sanction here as well.

 

3 Admission and Discipline Rule 23 was amended effective January 1, 2017. The citations herein are to 

the version of Rule 23(29) in effect at the time of Respondent’s misconduct.
5

Conclusion

Respondent already is under indefinite suspension for failure to cooperate with the 

Commission’s investigations. For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court disbars 

Respondent from the practice of law in this state effective immediately. Respondent shall fulfill 

all the duties of a disbarred 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.

Rush, C.J, and David and Goff, JJ., concur.

Massa and Slaughter, JJ., concur in the findings, dissent from the sanction, and would impose a 

three-year suspension without automatic reinstatement.