I N T H E

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 49S00-1603-DI-148

In the Matter of

Douglas L. Krasnoff

Respondent.

Decided: June 27, 2018

Attorney Discipline Action

Hearing Officer Helen W. Marchal

Per Curiam Opinion

Chief Justice Rush, Justice Massa, Justice Slaughter, and Justice Goff concur.

Justice David dissents.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 49S00-1603-DI-148 | June 27, 2018 Page 2 of 6

Per Curiam.

We find that Respondent, Douglas Krasnoff, engaged in attorney 

misconduct by practicing law while suspended and by intentionally 

misleading a client regarding his ability to work on her case. For this 

misconduct, the Court concludes that Respondent should be suspended 

for at least two years without automatic reinstatement, effective from the 

date of this opinion.

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 

1997 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 “Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action” 

against Respondent on March 28, 2016, and we appointed a hearing 

officer. Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer issued her 

report on March 14, 2018, finding Respondent committed violations as 

charged.

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 August 2014, “Mother” retained Respondent to seek release of “Son” 

from an involuntary mental health commitment. In early September, Son 

was transferred from one mental health facility to another but remained 

under involuntary commitment. 

Effective October 20, 2014, and continuing through May 27, 2015, 

Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Indiana due to his 

failure to pay costs in a prior disciplinary matter.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 49S00-1603-DI-148 | June 27, 2018 Page 3 of 6

In January 2015, Mother contacted Respondent about securing Son’s 

release, and at Respondent’s request Mother paid Respondent $1,000 for 

“legal fees.” Respondent did not tell Mother he was under a suspension 

from the practice of law. Respondent rendered legal analysis and advice to 

Mother but took no court action toward securing Son’s release. Mother 

soon confronted Respondent after discovering he was suspended. 

Respondent responded by falsely implying that he was able to practice 

law because his suspension was administrative rather than disciplinary in 

nature.1 Respondent also repeatedly responded to Mother’s inquiries 

about the status of the case by telling her that the mental health facilities

were being unreasonably nonresponsive to his record requests and that 

dealing with Son’s situation would take some time.

In late March or early April 2015, Respondent solicited an additional 

$1,000 from Mother to continue the representation. Respondent did not 

tell Mother that he could not request a hearing date from the court due to 

his suspension. In May, Mother again confronted Respondent after having 

been informed by staff at Richmond State Hospital that they had not been 

allowing Respondent to review Son’s medical records due to 

Respondent’s suspension. Respondent again tried to alleviate Mother’s 

concerns by emphasizing his suspension was administrative and not 

disciplinary.

After Respondent paid his costs and was reinstated to practice in May 

2015, he filed an appearance on Son’s behalf. Shortly thereafter though, 

Mother terminated the representation, demanded an explanation from 

Respondent about his inability to advance Son’s case due to his 

suspension, and also demanded a refund. Respondent replied by email,

 

1 “Administrative” suspensions include suspensions for costs or dues nonpayment, 

noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements, or failure to make the IOLTA 

certification required by Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 2(f). Although the 

requirements for reinstatement from an administrative suspension are ministerial in nature, 

this distinction does not alter in any way the prohibition against practicing law while 

suspended. An attorney’s lack of authority to practice law while suspended is the same 

regardless of the reason for the suspension. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 49S00-1603-DI-148 | June 27, 2018 Page 4 of 6

I am curious what were my other alternatives? Unfortunately 

my magic wand is broken. I operate within the system. If you 

don’t have the patience for it, that is not my fault. I am sure 

your son will appreciate you giving up.

(Comm’n Ex. 30). Respondent did not refund any fees to Mother.

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:

5.5(a): Engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

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

misrepresentation.

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

justice.

Even standing alone, Respondent’s misconduct in this case is extremely 

troubling. Respondent flagrantly defied our order suspending him from 

practice and engaged in a months-long pattern of deception toward 

Mother designed to mislead her into believing that Respondent could, and 

would, provide the contemplated legal services. Respondent extracted 

$2,000 in legal fees from Mother under these false pretenses despite 

knowing that his suspension precluded his ability to fulfill the objectives 

of the representation. Meanwhile, Son remained under involuntary 

commitment, with his opportunity to be heard in court needlessly delayed 

for months by Respondent’s misconduct.

But Respondent’s misconduct in this case does not stand alone. In 

addition to four prior administrative suspensions and three show cause 

proceedings initiated as a result of Respondent’s noncooperation with 

various disciplinary investigations, Respondent also has prior discipline 

for similar misconduct. Matter of Krasnoff, 78 N.E.3d 657 (Ind. 2017)

(imposing a 180-day suspension without automatic reinstatement, 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 49S00-1603-DI-148 | June 27, 2018 Page 5 of 6

effective September 1, 2017). That case, which involved among other 

things Respondent’s unauthorized practice of law with respect to another 

client while under an earlier administrative suspension, was pending at 

the time Respondent committed his misconduct in this case. Under these 

circumstances, Respondent’s prior discipline is a significant aggravating 

factor. See Matter of Wray, 91 N.E.3d 578, 585 (Ind. 2018).

With the above considerations in mind, the Court concludes that a 

suspension of at least two years without automatic reinstatement is 

appropriate discipline for Respondent’s misconduct in this case. See Matter 

of James, 78 N.E.3d 1086 (Ind. 2016); see also Matter of Halcarz, 800 N.E.2d 

570 (Ind. 2003). Further, in order to become eligible for reinstatement, 

Respondent must demonstrate that he has made restitution to Mother in 

the amount of $2,000. See Matter of Kern, 56 N.E.3d 623 (Ind. 2016). 

Conclusion

Respondent already is under an order of suspension imposed for prior 

misconduct. For Respondent’s professional misconduct in this case, 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. 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). Further, any such petition for reinstatement 

shall be accompanied by proof that full restitution has been paid to 

Mother and shall be subject to summary dismissal if such proof is lacking.

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent, and the 

hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 49S00-1603-DI-148 | June 27, 2018 Page 6 of 6

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

David, J., dissents regarding the sanction, believing that more severe 

discipline is warranted.

R E S P O N D E N T P R O S E

Douglas L. Krasnoff

Brownsburg, 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

G. Michael Witte, Executive Director

Angie L. Ordway, Staff Attorney

Indianapolis, Indiana