I N T H E

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 24S-DI-236

In the Matter of

Robert T. Miller,

Respondent.

Decided: August 30, 2024

Attorney Discipline Action

Per Curiam Opinion

Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-DI-236 | August 30, 2024 Page 2 of 5

Per curiam.

We find that Respondent, Robert T. Miller, engaged in attorney 

misconduct by signing family case managers’ (FCMs) names to Child in 

Need of Services (CHINS) petitions without their knowledge or consent. 

For this misconduct, we agree with the parties that Respondent should be 

suspended for 120 days with automatic reinstatement. 

Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(12.1)(b), 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. Respondent’s 2013 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.

Stipulated Facts

The Commission filed its disciplinary complaint against Respondent on 

July 11, 2024, and the parties jointly submitted their conditional agreement 

to this Court the following day. 

At all relevant times, Respondent was a staff attorney for the Indiana 

Department of Child Services (DCS) and was assigned to the office shared 

by Newton and Benton Counties. As a staff attorney, Respondent was 

responsible for preparing and filing CHINS petitions, which must be 

verified. In thirty-eight CHINS petitions filed between April 2022 and 

April 2023, Respondent signed the names of FCMs without their

knowledge or permission. DCS fired Respondent upon learning of his 

misconduct.

Importantly, the parties stipulate in their conditional agreement that 

there is no evidence any of the facts alleged in the CHINS petitions were 

falsified other than the signatures. Respondent drafted the petitions based 

on facts contained in documents prepared by the FCMs; the FCMs 

attended the initial hearings on the CHINS petitions with Respondent; 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-DI-236 | August 30, 2024 Page 3 of 5

and the FCMs testified regarding the information contained in the CHINS 

petitions.

Discussion and Discipline

The parties agree that by falsely signing the FCMs’ signatures to 

CHINS petitions, Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct 

Rules prohibiting the following misconduct:

3.3(a)(1): Knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal.

8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 

misrepresentation.

8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 

justice.

We have repeatedly lamented the fundamental breach in trust posed by 

attorneys who falsely sign or notarize legal documents. “The accuracy of 

documents and instruments utilized by a tribunal in a proceeding is of the 

utmost importance to the administration of justice.” Matter of Darling, 685 

N.E.2d 1066, 1068 (Ind. 1997). “[F]raudulent alteration of such documents 

by an officer of the court is therefore severe misconduct.” Id.

That such misconduct often has been motivated by considerations of 

expediency rather than selfishness does little to lessen the impact of the 

deceit upon courts, parties, and public confidence in the legal system. See

id.; see also Matter of Irk, 224 N.E.3d 925 (Ind. 2024) (involving false 

signatures in adoption proceedings that were expected to be uncontested); 

Matter of Browning, 39 N.E.3d 685 (Ind. 2015) (concerning false signatures 

in charging informations amended to make defendants eligible for pretrial 

diversion). As several members of this Court have emphasized,

Much of our legal system is predicated on the authenticity 

and reliability of signatures. For a lawyer to affix a false 

signature is a deception that gravely undermines public 

trust, respect, and confidence in the legal profession. Such 

inexcusable misconduct is not justified or excused by 

considerations of client convenience, expediency, or lack of 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-DI-236 | August 30, 2024 Page 4 of 5

personal gain. Affixing a false signature is manifestly 

dishonest and an absolute ethical transgression. 

Matter of Robison, 985 N.E.2d 336, 336 (Ind. 2013) (Dickson, C.J., joined by 

Rush, J., dissenting); see also Irk, 224 N.E.3d at 926 (Rush, C.J., joined by 

Goff, J., dissenting); Matter of Beeson, 997 N.E.2d 336, 337 (Ind. 2013)

(Dickson, C.J., dissenting).1

Most of these prior cases have involved relatively isolated occurrences 

and have resulted in reprimands or short suspensions. Here though, we 

are confronted with an attorney who forged FCMs’ signatures in dozens of 

CHINS cases in a pattern of misconduct that spanned approximately one

year. Moreover, as the parties rightly acknowledge in their conditional 

agreement, Respondent’s misconduct had the potential for significant 

injury due to the fundamental interests at stake in CHINS proceedings. 

Accordingly, more severe discipline is warranted here.

When weighing the seriousness and scope of the misconduct against 

the stipulated mitigating factors, which include among other things 

Respondent’s lack of prior discipline and his lengthy career of public 

service, we agree with the parties that a 120-day suspension with 

automatic reinstatement is appropriate.

Conclusion

The Court concludes that Respondent violated Indiana Professional 

Conduct Rules 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). For Respondent’s professional 

misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law in 

this state for a period of 120 days, beginning October 11, 2024. Respondent 

shall not undertake any new legal matters between service of this opinion 

and the effective date of the suspension, and Respondent shall fulfill all 

the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 

23(26). At the conclusion of the suspension period, provided there are no 

1 The dissents in these cases would have rejected the respective conditional agreements on 

grounds the proposed discipline was too lenient in light of the seriousness of the misconduct. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-DI-236 | August 30, 2024 Page 5 of 5

other suspensions then in effect, Respondent shall be automatically 

reinstated to the practice of law, subject to the conditions of Admission 

and Discipline Rule 23(18)(a).

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. Pursuant 

to the parties’ stipulation in their conditional agreement, the Court orders 

Respondent to pay $250.00 by check made payable and transmitted to the 

Clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court. The Clerk shall retain those funds in 

their entirety upon receipt. The parties further stipulate that the 

Commission’s investigation costs under Admission and Discipline Rule 

23(21)(a)(1) remain to be determined.

Rush, C.J., and Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur.

A T T O R N E Y F O R R E S P O N D E N T

Margaret M. Christensen

Indianapolis, Indiana

A T T O R N E Y S F O R I N D I A N A S U P R E M E C O U R T

D I S C I P L I N A R Y C O M M I S S I O N

Adrienne L. Meiring, Executive Director

Jill E. Esenwein, Staff Attorney

Indianapolis, Indiana