I N T H E

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 71S00-1704-DI-187

In the Matter of

Marcus E. Ellison

Respondent.

Decided: August 8, 2018

Attorney Discipline Action

Per Curiam Opinion

All Justices concur.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 71S00-1704-DI-187 | August 8, 2018 Page 2 of 5

Per curiam.

We find that Respondent, Marcus Ellison, engaged in conduct in 

contempt of this Court by failing to comply with our opinion suspending 

him from practice. As sanctions for his contempt, we extend Respondent’s 

suspension, order him to pay a fine, and order Respondent to serve 15 

days in prison if the fine is not timely paid.

This matter is before the Court on the Indiana Supreme Court 

Disciplinary Commission’s “Verified Motion for Rule to Show Cause.”

Respondent’s 2001 admission to this state’s bar and his unauthorized 

practice of law in this state while suspended subject him to this Court’s 

disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.

Discussion

On December 20, 2017, this Court issued an opinion suspending 

Respondent from the practice of law for at least 90 days without automatic 

reinstatement, effective beginning January 31, 2018. Respondent’s 

misconduct involved neglect of an appeal and pervasive dishonesty 

toward his client, the Court of Appeals, and the Commission. Matter of 

Ellison, 87 N.E.3d 460 (Ind. 2017). That suspension remains in effect.

The Commission filed a “Verified Motion for Rule to Show Cause” on 

April 16, 2018, asserting Respondent practiced law and held himself out as 

an attorney while suspended. Specifically, the Commission alleges that on 

separate occasions in February 2018 Respondent (1) attempted to engage 

in settlement discussions with opposing counsel on behalf of “Client 1,” 

and (2) identified himself as counsel for “Client 2” and sought electronic 

copies of discovery from opposing counsel in that case.

The Commission’s verified motion asserts further that Respondent has 

failed to comply with the duties of a suspended attorney under Indiana 

Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26) as ordered by this Court.

Specifically, the Commission alleges among other things that Respondent 

has failed to provide notice of his suspension in every pending matter in 

which he has filed an appearance and has failed to withdraw as counsel in 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 71S00-1704-DI-187 | August 8, 2018 Page 3 of 5

those pending matters. The Commission alleges that Respondent’s failure 

to comply with the requirements of Rule 23(26) that he withdraw from 

clients’ cases and make appropriate arrangements to transition those cases 

to successor counsel or pro se representation has actively harmed the 

interests of “Client 3,” against whom summary judgment and final 

judgment were sought and awarded while Respondent was suspended 

and unable to file anything on Client 3’s behalf. 

The Court issued an order to show cause on April 17, 2018. Respondent 

filed a response on May 1, 2018, and the parties filed additional responsive 

pleadings thereafter. Respondent’s responses are not verified, nor do they 

directly contradict the factual allegations made by the Commission in its 

verified motion. With respect to Client 1, Respondent points to settlement 

discussions that he claims occurred prior to his suspension taking effect, 

but Respondent does not deny the Commission’s allegation that he 

attempted to engage opposing counsel in a settlement discussion after his 

suspension became effective. With respect to Client 2, Respondent admits 

that after the effective date of his suspension he sent an email to opposing 

counsel in which he requested discovery, identified himself as “the listed 

attorney on this matter,” stated “I am local counsel for the client,” and 

informed opposing counsel that “I have been asked to withdraw.” And 

with respect to Client 3, Respondent implicitly acknowledges his failure to 

comply with the requirements of Rule 23(26) but claims without any 

support that the entry of summary judgment against Client 3 was the 

result of a settlement reached months earlier, prior to his suspension 

taking effect.

Based on the above, we find that Respondent has violated this Court’s 

opinion suspending him from the practice of law as asserted by the 

Commission in its verified motion.1 And as we did in another opinion 

handed down today, we conclude that a fine and extension of 

Respondent’s suspension are warranted here, and that Respondent should 

 

1 We do not address an additional allegation of contempt with respect to “Client 4,” which 

was asserted by the Commission for the first time in an unverified responsive pleading.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 71S00-1704-DI-187 | August 8, 2018 Page 4 of 5

serve a period of imprisonment if he fails to timely pay his fine in full. See 

Matter of Huston, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Aug. 8, 2018). 

Conclusion

We conclude that Respondent engaged in conduct in contempt of this 

Court by failing to comply with our opinion suspending him from 

practice, and we impose the following sanctions for Respondent’s 

contempt.

The Court fines Respondent $750. Respondent shall remit this amount 

within thirty (30) days of service of this opinion to the Clerk of the 

Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax Court.

If Respondent fails to pay the $750 fine in full by the deadline set 

forth above, this Court shall order Respondent to serve a term of 

imprisonment for a period of 15 days, without the benefit of good time, 

and the Sheriff of the Supreme Court of Indiana will be directed to take 

Respondent into custody and turn him over to the Indiana Department of 

Correction. Respondent may avoid said imprisonment only upon 

payment in full of the $750 fine assessed against him within the deadline 

set forth above. In the event Respondent fails to timely pay his $750 fine in 

full and serves the resulting term of imprisonment, Respondent thereafter 

shall be released from the obligation to pay the assessed fine.

Finally, the Court orders that the minimum length of Respondent’s 

current suspension from the practice of law in this state be extended and 

that Respondent remain suspended for a period of not less than one year, 

without automatic reinstatement, effective from the date of this opinion.

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent and will 

be taxed by separate order.

All Justices concur.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 71S00-1704-DI-187 | August 8, 2018 Page 5 of 5

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

Marcus E. Ellison

South Bend, 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