ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT

Pro se

ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT 

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary

Robert D. Shook, Staff Attorney

Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court 

_________________________________

No. 82S00-1111-DI-662

IN THE MATTER OF:

DOUGLAS W. PATTERSON,

Respondent.

_________________________________

Attorney Discipline Action

Hearing Officer Wayne S. Trockman

_________________________________

June 20, 2012

Per Curiam.

We find that Respondent, Douglas W. Patterson, engaged in attorney misconduct by 

committing three counts of class D felony theft of client funds and by engaging in conduct 

involving 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 Supreme 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 jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. 
2

Background

Prior relevant disciplinary 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 

$10,500 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 misconduct:

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 involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 

misrepresentation.

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

Matter of Patterson, 888 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 2008). On April 30, 2009, this Court entered an order 

finding Respondent in contempt for practicing law while suspended and imposed 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 that 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 above, the Commission charged Respondent with violating 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 lawyer.
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 clients 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 hearing 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 the 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. 1995). 

As to discipline, we 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 appropriate 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 Standards applies to

the matter before us. We 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). 

The Court already has imposed a three-year suspension on Respondent based in part on 

the conduct underlying the current case. In addition, there 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 warranted at this time.

Conclusion

The Court concludes that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) 

and 8.4(c) by committing three counts of class D felony theft 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 Discipline 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.