FOR THE RESPONDENT		FOR THE SUPREME COURT

						     DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

Gene E. Conn, pro se			Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary

						115 West Washington Street, Suite 1060

						Indianapolis, IN 46204

	IN THE

	SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

IN THE MATTER OF			  )

						  )  Case No. 43S00-9709-DI-479

GENE E. CONN		 		  )

__________________________________________________________________

	DISCIPLINARY ACTION

__________________________________________________________________

September 1, 1999

Per Curiam

	The respondent, Gene E. Conn, was convicted and imprisoned in 1997 for sexual

exploitation of minors.  While he was under federal investigation for that crime in 1995, he

failed in his duty to amend his application to the Indiana bar to reveal that investigation. 

Today we approve a Conditional Agreement for Discipline between the respondent and the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission pursuant to Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 11.  Our approval of this agreement will result in respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for a minimum of two years for engaging in this professional misconduct.1

	The undisputed facts show that, in 1994, the respondent downloaded from the Internet

sexually explicit images of children.  At the time, he was a student at the Indiana University

School of Law - Bloomington.  On April 27, 1995, he initiated his effort to become a

licensed attorney in Indiana by submitting his sworn Application for Admission Upon Examination to Practice Law to the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners.  On his bar application, the respondent was directed to respond to the following two items:

		19.  In addition to the convictions set forth in 18 above, I

		have been accused of the following violations of law: Note:

		(a.) Set out date, city and state, name of person who made the

		accusation against you, the law enforcement agency involved,

		if any, and any disposition.  (b.) Give specific details of the

		accusation and a full description of the incident.  (c.) Attach

		copies of all documents relating to the charges and disposition

		thereof, including police reports, charges, indictments, dispositions,

		orders, and court records.

		20.  Within the meaning of the term “good moral character”

		and “fitness” to practice law as set out and defined in Rule 13

		IV (A) of the Rules of Admission to the Bar of Indiana (which

		I have read and understand), since I became 18 years of age

		the only incidents in which I have been involved where there was

		any challenge to my honesty and integrity are as follows: Note:

`		(a.) Set out brief description of each incident, include the date, city

		and state, other persons involved, and how the matter was resolved.

		(b.) Attach copies of all documents relating to the incident.

Included in the respondent’s bar application was an Agreement, Release and Authorization signed by the respondent.  It stated, “I fully understand and agree that this Application is a

continuing application and agree that if any matter contained herein shall be changed by any

event or incident I will immediately notify the Board of Law Examiners of such change.”

	In September 1995, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed

the respondent regarding his involvement in receiving and transmitting child pornography

over the Internet.  As a result of that interview, the respondent knew or reasonably should

have known that he was the subject of a criminal investigation regarding child pornography. 

The respondent did not update his bar application to note this investigation, although he had

a duty to do so.  The respondent was admitted to practice law in the State of Indiana on

October 23, 1995.

  	In April 1996, the respondent was charged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana with one count of Sexual Exploitation of Minors in violation of

18 U.S.C. section 2252.  He pleaded guilty on April 25, 1996, and was sentenced on AugustAugust

21, 1997, to fifteen months in prison and two years of supervised release.  On the basis of

that conviction, this Court suspended the respondent on October 21, 1997, pending

conclusion of this disciplinary proceeding.

	We find that the respondent violated Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 8.1(a) and (b) 

by failing to correct his bar application to reflect that he was under federal investigation with reference to child pornography.2  We further find that the respondent, by conveying and receiving child pornography in violation of federal law, violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) by

committing a criminal act that reflected adversely on his trustworthiness and fitness as a

lawyer.3 

	Now that we have found misconduct, we must determine an appropriate sanction.  The

respondent and the Commission suggest a two-year suspension from the practice of law,

commencing on October 28, 1998, the date of the submission of the original conditional agreement.4  In assessing a sanction, we examine the nature of the misconduct, the duty violated, the state of mind of the respondent, the actual or potential injury caused by the

respondent, the potential risk to the public in allowing the respondent to continue in practice,

the duty of this Court to preserve the integrity of the profession, and factors in aggravation

and mitigation.  Matter of Lucas, 672 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. 1996).  The respondent’s misconduct could warrant a more severe sanction.  We have disbarred an attorney whose falsification of

a bar application was detected after his admission to the practice of law in this state. See, e.g., Matter of Verma, 691 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. 1998).  If the respondent had disclosed the federal investigation in his child pornography activities to the Board of Law Examiners as required,

whether he would have passed the character and fitness review required of all candidates for

bar admission is unclear.  Absent substantial mitigating circumstances or policy

considerations, we would not be inclined to favor a sanction which allows the respondent to

retain a law license which he might not have obtained absent concealment of previous

misconduct.  As we noted in Matter of Charos, 585 N.E.2d 1334, 1335 (Ind. 1992), a case which also involved deceit in the bar application process:

		At his very first encounter with a situation calling for 

		sound professional ethics, theis Respondent embarked on a 

		path of deception.  The very nature of this violation indicates 

		a serious lack of candor which reflects negatively on a 

		lawyer’s integrity and professional status. 	

	The parties have agreed on various factors which they suggest mitigate the severity

of the misconduct.  They note the respondent admitted his criminal conduct in federal court

and has cooperated with the Disciplinary Commission.  Respondent has sought counseling

voluntarily at his own expense.  He was found to be of sound mental health and discharged

from treatment after only a few sessions with no follow-up recommended by the counselor.

	The parties also cite as a mitigating factor that the respondent believed after the initial

visit by FBI agents that the investigation into his activities had ended and would not result

in charges.  They also suggest he was unaware that his conduct constituted a violation of a

specific federal law.  We note, however, that the respondent either knew, or reasonably

should have known, that receiving and conveying sexually explicit images of children was

illegal conduct and that, in any event, the FBI questioning should have prompted him to

reveal such conduct to the State Board of Law Examiners.

	Given the mitigating factors in this case and our policy of accepting conditional

agreements to encourage expeditious and agreed resolutions of disciplinary matters, we

accept the conditional agreement and its two-year suspension.  We note that such discipline

is consistent with sanctions imposed in other disciplinary proceedings arising from charges

relating to illicit child sexual activities.  Matter of Buker, 615 N.E.2d 436 (Ind. 1993) (approving conditional agreement for two-year suspension for displaying sexually explicit

material to, and molesting, child); Matter of Kern, 551 N.E.2d 454 (Ind. 1990) (two-year suspension for child molestation). 

	It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent, Gene E. Conn, isbe suspended for a

minimum of two years, beginning October 26, 1998.  At the end of that two-year period, the

respondent may seek reinstatement to the practice of law upon a showing that he has met the

conditions of Admis.Disc.R. 23(4).  In any petition for reinstatement, the respondent must

convince the Commission and the Court that he can be safely recommended to the legal

profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent

them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence.  Admis.Disc.R. 23(4) and (18).

  	The Clerk of this Court is directed to provide notice of this order in accordance with Admis.Disc.R. 23(3)(d) and to provide the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Seventh Circuit, the Clerk of each of the United States District Courts in this state, and

the Clerk of each of the United States Bankruptcy Courts in this state with the last known

address of the respondent as reflected in the records of the Clerk.

	Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent.