I N T H E

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 22S-DI-254

In the Matter of

Angela Sallee Field Trapp,

Respondent.

Decided: December 11, 2023

Attorney Discipline Action

Hearing Officer David J. Hensel

Per Curiam Opinion

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

Justice Molter concurs in part and dissents in part.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-254 | December 11, 2023 Page 2 of 6

Per curiam.

We find that Respondent, Angela Trapp, committed attorney 

misconduct by impermissibly communicating with a represented person 

about the subject of the representation and knowingly making false 

statements to a court about the impermissible communication. For this 

misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be suspended for 30 

days with automatic reinstatement.

The matter is now before us on the report of the hearing officer this 

Court appointed to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court 

Disciplinary Commission’s verified disciplinary complaint. Respondent’s 

2007 admission to this state’s bar subjects her to this Court’s disciplinary 

jurisdiction. See Ind. Const. art. 7, § 4.

Procedural Background and Facts 

Respondent represented “Husband” in consolidated marital dissolution 

and protective order proceedings (hereinafter the “Divorce Case”)

initiated in the wake of a domestic dispute. Respondent also represented 

Husband in a criminal proceeding (hereinafter the “Criminal Case”) 

arising from the same domestic dispute. Wife was represented by counsel 

in the Divorce Case, and Respondent knew this.

In early April 2019, Wife’s protective order petition was granted by 

agreement and Husband’s protective order petition was dismissed. An 

agreed provisional order entered in the Divorce Case around the same 

time indicated that issues remaining to be resolved included attorney fees, 

valuation of marital assets, and division of the marital estate. The marital 

assets included several firearms allegedly in the home at the time the 

domestic incident occurred that police did not find when they searched

the property.

Without notifying Wife’s counsel, Respondent subpoenaed Wife in the 

Criminal Case and took a taped statement from her in August 2019. 

During that interview Respondent questioned Wife about the domestic 

incident and asked her several questions about the firearms and other 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-254 | December 11, 2023 Page 3 of 6

marital property over the objection of the deputy prosecutor, who 

referenced the Divorce Case and Wife’s right to have her counsel present.

When later confronted about this by Wife’s counsel, Respondent stated 

“We asked zero questions about the divorce case.” And when Wife’s 

counsel filed a motion for an order to produce the taped statement, 

Respondent filed an objection inaccurately stating that “Wife’s Counsel 

had one (1) month[’s] notice of the taped statement” and the taped 

statement was not relevant to matters at issue in the Divorce Case. The 

court issued the order to produce and denied Respondent’s subsequent 

motion to reconsider, noting that in an earlier pleading Respondent had 

represented that trial in the Criminal Case would impact the outcome of 

the Divorce Case. The court added that Respondent “should be prepared 

to discuss Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 and its comments at the final 

dissolution hearing.” Respondent emailed the recorded statement to 

Wife’s counsel the following day.

In November 2020, Wife’s successor counsel moved for Respondent to 

be disqualified in the Divorce Case due to Respondent’s questioning of 

Wife without her counsel present. In February 2021, successor counsel 

appeared for Husband in the Divorce Case, Respondent withdrew her 

appearance, and the motion to disqualify was denied as moot.

In July 2022, the Commission filed a disciplinary complaint alleging 

Respondent violated the following Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct:

3.3(a)(1): Knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a 

tribunal.

4.2: Improperly communicating with a person the lawyer knows to 

be represented by another lawyer in the matter.

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

justice.

An evidentiary hearing was held in March 2023. Following the submission 

of proposed findings by the parties, the hearing officer issued a 17-page 

report finding that Respondent violated all three rules as charged and 

recommending a short suspension with automatic reinstatement. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-254 | December 11, 2023 Page 4 of 6

Respondent has petitioned for review of that report, responsive briefs 

have been filed, and the matter is now ripe for our consideration.

Discussion and Discipline

Respondent concedes she violated Rule 4.21 but seeks review of the 

hearing officer’s findings and conclusions that she violated Rules 3.3(a)(1) 

and 8.4(d). The Commission carries the burden of proof to demonstrate 

attorney misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Admis. Disc. R.

23(14)(g). And while the review process in disciplinary cases involves a de 

novo examination of all matters presented to the Court, a hearing officer’s 

findings nevertheless receive emphasis due to the unique opportunity for 

direct observation of witnesses. See Matter of Gabriel, 120 N.E.3d 189, 190 

(Ind. 2019).

The hearing officer expressly found that Respondent “was not a 

credible witness” at the final hearing and was “evasive and combative.” 

(Report at 10, 17). We will not second-guess this credibility determination, 

and our own review of the transcript amply supports the evasiveness 

finding. This credibility determination in turn undercuts many of 

Respondent’s arguments on review, which rely to a large extent on her 

own discredited testimony.

We agree with the hearing officer’s ultimate conclusions that 

Respondent violated Rule 3.3(a)(1). Respondent points to her own 

testimony that the reference to “Wife’s counsel” having been given notice 

of the taped statement was a scrivener’s error. But Respondent’s 

testimony was not credited and finds little circumstantial support in the 

record. Moreover, Respondent does not explain why she failed to correct 

1 Although Respondent quibbles at the margins regarding the scope of her violation, the 

parties appear to agree that the precise contours of Respondent’s Rule 4.2 violation have little 

ultimate bearing on sanction. (See Resp. at 11; Reply at 1 n.1). Respondent concedes she 

crossed the Rubicon in her questioning of Wife, and that concession is sufficient for our 

purposes today. See Matter of Martin, 166 N.E.3d 345 (Ind. 2021); Matter of Litz, 894 N.E.2d 983 

(Ind. 2008).
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-254 | December 11, 2023 Page 5 of 6

this false statement, which Rule 3.3(a)(1) also required her to do. See

Matter of Powell, 76 N.E.3d 130, 134 (Ind. 2017). Respondent’s challenges to 

the hearing officer’s determination that additional statements Respondent 

made to the trial court were false similarly invite a reweighing of 

testimony, find little circumstantial support, and are undercut by 

Respondent’s contemporaneous pattern of deception in her 

communications with Wife’s counsel.

2

We are similarly unpersuaded by Respondent’s challenge to the 

hearing officer’s finding of a Rule 8.4(d) violation. Respondent’s acts of 

misconduct unduly prolonged the litigation in the Divorce Case, required 

the court and Wife’s counsel to expend additional resources to force 

Respondent to turn over the taped statement, and led to disqualification 

proceedings that ultimately compelled Husband to retain new counsel. 

This easily meets the threshold for prejudice under Rule 8.4(d). See Matter 

of Neary, 84 N.E.3d 1194, 1197 (Ind. 2017).

Turning to the question of sanction, we have regularly imposed 

reprimands for similar violations of Rule 4.2. See, e.g., Matter of Steele, 181 

N.E.3d 976, 980 (Ind. 2022); Martin, 166 N.E.3d at 347; Litz, 894 N.E.2d at 

984; Matter of Baker, 758 N.E.2d 56, 58 (Ind. 2001). Were Respondent’s 

misconduct so limited, we might be inclined to do so here as well. But we 

agree with the Commission that Respondent’s additional acts of 

dishonesty toward the court in the Divorce Case elevate this to a more 

serious level that warrants a short suspension. See, e.g., Matter of Lynn, 918 

N.E.2d 334, 335 (Ind. 2009); Matter of Gaydos, 738 N.E.2d 276, 277 (Ind. 

2000); Matter of Chovanec, 640 N.E.2d 1052, 1054 (Ind. 1994).

2 Respondent’s argument that dishonesty toward opposing counsel is not encompassed 

within Rule 3.3, while true, misses the point. Respondent’s broader pattern of deception is 

probative of her mens rea underlying the statements to the court that are subject to Rule 3.3 

and undercuts her assertions of inadvertence and lack of knowledge.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-254 | December 11, 2023 Page 6 of 6

Conclusion

The Court concludes that Respondent violated Professional Conduct 

Rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.2, 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 30 days, beginning January 22, 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 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, and the hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged 

with the Court’s appreciation.

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

Molter, J., concurs in part but dissents from the sanction, believing a 

public reprimand is warranted.

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

Nicholas W. Levi

Michael E. Brown

Kightlinger & Gray, LLP

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

Greg N. Anderson, Acting Executive Director

Angie L. Ordway, Staff Attorney

Indianapolis, Indiana