A TTORNEY FOR THE R ESPONDENT

Pro se A TTORNEYS FOR THE I NDIANA S UPREME C OURT D ISCIPL I NARY C OMMISSION G. Michael Witte , Executive Secretary Robert D. Shook , Staff Attorney Indianapolis, Indiana

____________________________________________________________ __________________ 

# In the 

# Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________

No. 82S00

- 1111

- DI

- 662

I N THE M ATTER OF :

D OUGLAS W. P ATTERSON
, Respondent.

_________________________________ Attorney Discipline Action Hearing Officer W ayne S. Trockman

_________________________________

June 20 , 20 1 2

Per Curiam.

We find that R e spondent, Douglas W. Patterson , engaged in attorney misconduct by
committing three counts of class D felon y t heft of client funds and by engaging in conduct

inv olving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. For this misconduct, we find 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 Supre me Court Disciplinary Commission's "Verified
Complaint for Disciplinary Action

. " Respondent's 1989 admission to this state's bar subjects

him to this Court's disciplinary jurisdi c tion. See I ND

. C ONST

. art. 7, § 4.2 Background

Prior relevant disciplin ary actions against Respondent . The Commission filed a verified
complaint against Respondent on February 25, 2004, initiating Cause No. 82S00

- 0402

- DI

- 90.
In a per curiam opinion, this Court found that Respondent wrote unauthorized checks totaling
$10,50 0 on the firm's trust account. Respondent made false statements regarding the matter
during the Commission's investigation and at the hearing. The Court concluded that Respondent
violated these Professional Rules of Conduct prohibiting the following misc onduct:

Rule 1.15(a): Failure to hold property of clients properly in trust. Rule 8.4(b): Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. Rule 8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involvin g dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

The Court imposed a suspension of at least three year s, which is still in effect. See

Matter of Patterson , 888 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 2008). On April 30, 2009, this Court entered an o rder
finding Respondent i n contempt for practicing law while suspended and impos ed a $500 fine.

See Matter of Patterson

, 907 N.E.2d 970 (Ind. 2009)

.

On January 26, 2011, Respondent was convicted on a guilty plea to three counts of Theft,

all class D felonies (the convictions tha t are the basis of the current action). The Commission
filed a "Notice of Guilty Finding and Request for Suspension" on February 21, 2011, initiating

Cause No. 82S00

- 1102

- DI

- 96. The Court entered an order of interim suspension on April 28,

2011, which is still in effect. See Matter of Patterson , 945 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. 2011).

The current action . The Commission filed a "Verified Complaint for Disciplinary
Action" against Respondent on November 14, 2011 . Based on Respondent's felony convictions

described a bove, the Commission charg ed Respondent with violat ing these Professional Rules of
Conduct prohibiting the following misconduct:

Rule 8.4(b): Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a law yer.3

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

Respondent was served with the complaint and did not respond. Accordingly, the
hearing officer took the facts alleged in the complaint as true. See Admis. Disc. R. 23(14)(c).

The hearing officer found that Respondent was convicted on a guilty plea to three counts
of Theft, all class D felonies. The charges were based on exercising unauthorized control over
funds in excess of $17,000 belonging to 24 clien ts or former clients. The funds included prepaid
attorney fees and filing fees. Respondent was sentenced to three years on each count, with one
year executed, to be served concurrently.

Discussion

Neither party filed a petition for review of the h earing officer's report. 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). We concur in th e hearing officer's findings of fact and conclude that Respondent
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.

Misappropriation of client funds is a grave transgression. It demonstrates a conscious desire to accomplish an unlawful act, denotes a lack of virtually all personal characteristics we deem important to law practice, threatens to bring significant misfortune on the unsuspecting client and severely impugns the integrity of the profession.

Matter of Hill , 655 N.E.2d 343, 345 (Ind. 199 5).

As to discipline

, w e frequently look for guidance to the American Bar Association's
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (as amended in 1992) ("Standards")

. The Standards
provide:

Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client
property and causes injury or potentially serious injury to a client.4

Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct a necessary element of which includes . . . misappropriation, or theft

. . . .

Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice.

Disbarment is generally appropriat e when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer

. . . and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client

. . . .

Standards 4.11, 5.11(a), 5.11( b), and 7.1. We conclude that each of these S tandards applies to

the matter before us

. W e therefore conclude that Respondent's conduct warrants disbarment.

See Matter of Hill , 655 N.E.2d 343, 345 (Ind. 1995) (converting estate funds warranted

disbarment ).

T he Court already has imposed a three

- year suspension on Respondent based in part on
the conduct underlying the current case. In addition, t here are circumstances in this case that
were not present in the prior case : (1) the amount of client funds converted and the number of

clients involved are now known to be greater than cited in the prior case; and (2) Respondent's

acts have been adjudicated to constitute multiple felonies. These considerations support the

Court's decision that disbarment is wa rranted at this time.

Conclusion

The Court concludes that Respondent violate d Indiana Professional Conduct Rule s 8.4(b)

and 8.4 (c) by committing three counts of class D felon y t heft of client funds and by engaging in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

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 Discip line Rule 23(26).5

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. The hearing officer
appointed in this case is discharged.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to give notice of this opinion to the hearing officer, to
the parties or their respective attorneys, and to all other entities entitled to notice under
Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d). The Clerk is further directed to post this opinion to the
Court's website, and Thomson Reuters is directed to publish a copy of this opinion in the bound

volumes of this Court's decisions.

All Justices concur.