I N T H E

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 19S-DI-277

In the Matter of

Steven T. Fulk,

Respondent.

Decided: June 15, 2020

Attorney Discipline Action

Hearing Officer Lloyd H. Milliken, Jr.

Per Curiam Opinion

All Justices concur.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-277 | June 15, 2020 Page 2 of 5

Per curiam.

We find that Respondent, Steven Fulk, committed attorney misconduct 

by neglecting a client’s case, converting an employee’s tax withholdings 

for his own personal use, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary 

process. For this misconduct, we conclude 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 “Disciplinary Complaint.” Respondent’s 1995 

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 its two-count disciplinary complaint against 

Respondent on May 8, 2019. Respondent was served but never properly 

appeared or responded. Accordingly, the Commission filed an 

“Application for Judgment on the Complaint,” and the hearing officer 

took the facts alleged in the complaint as true.

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).

Count 1. Respondent represented the ex-husband (“Client”) in postdissolution matters in Hamilton County. In December 2017, the ex-wife 

filed a motion for rule to show cause alleging Client had failed to 

reimburse his portion of uninsured medical and dental expenses for 

several years. A hearing on the matter was scheduled for April 3, 2018. 

Both the court and opposing counsel sent notice of the hearing date to 

Respondent. After neither Client nor Respondent appeared for the April 3 

hearing, Client was found in contempt and ordered to pay back medical 

and dental support and attorney fees within 45 days.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-277 | June 15, 2020 Page 3 of 5

Client later filed a letter with the court indicating that the first he had 

learned of the hearing or the court order was in an email sent by his exwife about five weeks after the hearing. In that letter and a subsequent 

letter, Client informed the court he had attempted without success to 

contact Respondent multiple times and by multiple means. Client 

requested that the court vacate its contempt order, remove Respondent 

from the case, and allow Client to proceed pro se. Client’s pro se efforts to 

obtain relief from the contempt order were unsuccessful, and the court 

later reduced that order to a civil judgment against Client in the amount of 

$2,545.35. 

When the Commission opened an investigation, Respondent failed to 

substantively respond to the Commission’s demand for information or 

comply with a subpoena duces tecum for Client’s file.

Count 2. Respondent employed “Assistant” from 2005 until Assistant 

quit in early 2018. During that time Respondent withheld money for Social 

Security from Assistant’s earnings, but instead of depositing those sums 

with the federal government, he instead converted those funds for his 

own personal use. 

In late 2017 Assistant received a Social Security statement showing she 

had no earnings for any of the years she had worked for Respondent. 

Assistant confronted Respondent about this and Respondent promised he 

would get it corrected, but Respondent never did so. Respondent also 

failed to respond to the Commission’s demand for information on this 

matter.

Discussion

We concur in the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclude that 

Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 

prohibiting the following misconduct:

1.4(a)(3): Failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the 

status of a matter.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-277 | June 15, 2020 Page 4 of 5

3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules or an 

order of a court.

8.1(b): Knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for 

information from a disciplinary authority.

8.4(b): Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 

lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

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

misrepresentation.

“In exercising our disciplinary authority, we have an obligation to 

protect the public and the profession from the tactics of unscrupulous 

lawyers.” Matter of Johnson, 53 N.E.3d 1177, 1180 (Ind. 2016). Respondent 

stole earnings from Assistant (his sole employee) during the entire twelveplus years of her employment, violating both state and federal criminal 

law in the process. Respondent severely neglected Client’s case, resulting 

in financial detriment to Client. Respondent has shown absolutely no 

remorse for, or insight into, his misconduct. Respondent refused to 

cooperate with the Commission’s investigations, has refused to 

meaningfully participate in these disciplinary proceedings, and has filed 

no petition for review, brief on sanction, or responsive brief in this Court.

Under these circumstances, and based on the record before us, we 

conclude that Respondent should be disbarred.

Conclusion

Respondent already is under an order of indefinite suspension for 

noncooperation. 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). The costs of this proceeding 

are assessed against Respondent, and the hearing officer appointed in this 

case is discharged with the Court’s appreciation.

All Justices concur.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-277 | June 15, 2020 Page 5 of 5

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

Steven T. Fulk

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

G. Michael Witte, Executive Director

David E. Griffith, Staff Attorney

Indianapolis, Indiana