RESPONDENT PRO SE

Steven J. Ouellette

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT 

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary

John P. Higgins, Staff Attorney

Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________

No. 02S00-1502-DI-107

IN THE MATTER OF:

STEVEN J. OUELLETTE,

Respondent.

_________________________________

Attorney Discipline Action

Hearing Officer William C. Fee

_________________________________

July 21, 2015

Per Curiam.

We find that Respondent, Steven Ouellette, committed attorney misconduct by

converting client funds 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 “Verified 

Complaint for Disciplinary Action.” Respondent’s 1981 admission to this state’s bar subjects 

him to this Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. 
2

Procedural Background and Facts

The Commission filed a “Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action” against 

Respondent on February 27, 2015. Respondent was served and did not timely file an answer.1 

Accordingly, the Commission filed an “Affidavit and Application for Judgment on the Verified 

Complaint,” and the hearing officer took the facts alleged in the verified 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).

In January 2005, “Clients” retained Respondent to represent them in their Chapter 13 

bankruptcy. In December 2010, the bankruptcy trustee issued a refund check for $8,725.35, 

payable to Clients. For almost two and one-half years, Respondent did not disclose the existence 

of this check to Clients. Instead, Respondent fraudulently endorsed and deposited the check into 

an account that was not his attorney trust account, and thereafter used the proceeds for his own 

personal purposes. When the trustee’s final report (issued in June 2013) revealed the issuance of 

the refund check, Clients confronted Respondent, and Respondent promised to repay the amount 

to Clients. Respondent later issued a check in the amount of $8,725.35, drawn on an account 

other than his attorney trust account, but Clients were unable to negotiate the check due to 

insufficient funds in the account. When Clients later retained successor counsel, Respondent 

refused to return Clients’ file.

Based on the above events, Clients filed a disciplinary grievance against Respondent in 

October 2013. Respondent refused to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation and 

 

1 Respondent eventually tendered a belated answer at the hearing on the Commission’s application for 

judgment on the complaint, which the hearing officer declined to accept. Given Respondent’s refusal to 

cooperate with the Commission’s investigation, his failure to comply with the deadlines imposed under 

the Admission and Discipline Rules, and his failure to file a petition for review or brief on sanction, we 

likewise decline to give Respondent’s belatedly-tendered answer any effect. 
3

demands for information. Respondent has been suspended under a separate cause since August 

2014 due to his noncooperation with the Commission. 

The hearing officer found the following facts in aggravation: (1) Respondent has been 

disciplined twice before;2(2) Respondent acted with a dishonest and selfish motive; (3) 

Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct; (4) Respondent engaged in multiple offenses; 

(5) Respondent engaged in bad-faith obstruction of the disciplinary process; (6) Respondent fails 

to acknowledge any wrongdoing; (7) Respondent has substantial experience in the practice of 

law; and (8) Respondent has engaged in illegal conduct. The hearing officer found no facts in 

mitigation and recommended that Respondent be disbarred.

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:

1.15(a): Failure to hold property of clients properly in trust.

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

disciplinary authority. 

8.4(b): Committing a criminal act (conversion) 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 addition, we conclude that Respondent violated Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 

23(29)(a)(4) by failing to deposit funds received on behalf of clients intact.

 

2 Matter of Ouellette, 636 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 1994) (Respondent suspended for knowingly making false 

statements of material fact to a tribunal and failing to disclose such facts when disclosure was necessary); 

Matter of Ouellette, 857 N.E.2d 377 (Ind. 2006) (Respondent suspended for failing to act with reasonable 

diligence in representing a client, failing to keep the client adequately informed, and failing to timely 

respond to the Commission’s investigation).
4

In recommending disbarment, the hearing officer cited Respondent’s conversion of client 

funds and the absence of any compelling mitigation. See American Bar Association’s Standards 

for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 4.11 (“Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer 

knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client”). We agree. 

“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). Respondent has not filed a brief urging a different sanction, and we have disbarred other 

attorneys who have demonstrated similar unfitness to be entrusted with the responsibilities that 

accompany a license to practice law in this state. See id.; see also Matter of Brown, 766 N.E.2d 

363 (Ind. 2002); Matter of Shumate, 647 N.E.2d 321 (Ind. 1995).

Conclusion

Respondent already is under indefinite suspension for failure to cooperate with the 

Commission’s investigation. 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.

All Justices concur.