I N T H E

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-299

In the Matter of 

Tia R. Brewer,

Respondent.

Decided: November 16, 2018

Attorney Discipline Action

Hearing Officer Emily C. Guenin-Hodson

Per Curiam Opinion

Chief Justice Rush, Justice David, Justice Massa, and Justice Slaughter concur.

Justice Goff did not participate.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-299 | November 16, 2018 Page 2 of 6

Per Curiam.

We find that Respondent, Tia R. Brewer, committed attorney 

misconduct by, among other things, neglecting clients’ cases, failing to 

appear at show cause hearings, failing to withdraw from cases when her 

abuse of cocaine rendered her unable to assist her clients, committing a 

crime that reflects adversely on her fitness as a lawyer, and failing to 

cooperate with the disciplinary process. For this misconduct, we conclude 

that Respondent should be suspended for at least three years without 

automatic reinstatement.

The matter is before us on the report of the hearing officer appointed by 

this Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary

Commission’s verified disciplinary complaint. Respondent’s 2004

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

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

Procedural Background and Facts 

 The Commission filed a “Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action” 

against Respondent on May 30, 2018. After service by certified mail at 

Respondent’s address was unsuccessful, constructive service was made 

upon the Clerk as Respondent's agent pursuant to Admission and 

Discipline Rule 23(23.1)(c). Respondent has not appeared or responded in 

these proceedings. Accordingly, the Commission filed a “Motion for 

Judgment on the Complaint,” and the hearing officer took the facts alleged 

in the disciplinary 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). 

Counts 1 through 11. Respondent was hired by eleven separate 

clients to represent them in various criminal and family law cases. She 

neglected each case. Respondent failed to keep one client informed 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-299 | November 16, 2018 Page 3 of 6

regarding the status of the client’s case and failed to inform three clients 

that Respondent was not going to attend a hearing prior to her failure to 

attend. She failed to return a client’s file after being terminated. She 

missed the deadline to file an Appellant’s Brief, resulting in dismissal of 

the client’s appeal, though the Court of Appeals later allowed a belated 

appeal. 

Respondent failed to attend hearings in nine of the cases, two of which 

were final hearings in family law matters. Respondent’s failure to attend 

hearings resulted in three show cause proceedings against her. 

Respondent appeared at one show cause hearing and admitted she was 

suffering from personal issues. In the other two, Respondent failed to 

appear. After the court entered a bench warrant against Respondent in 

one case, Respondent appeared and admitted she had not appeared for a 

change of plea hearing or the show cause hearing because she was 

voluntarily intoxicated at the time. Respondent has admitted to abusing 

cocaine during much of this period, rendering her unable to assist her 

clients. 

 Count 12. On May 26, 2017, when the bench warrant was served on 

Respondent, she was incoherent and impaired. Law enforcement found 

cocaine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in Respondent’s possession. 

She was charged with one Level 6 felony and two misdemeanors. She pled 

guilty to possession of cocaine as a Level 6 felony, though the trial court 

entered a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor. 

Count 13. On June 12, 2017, the Commission sent Respondent a 

demand for a response to an investigation. After receiving no response, 

the Commission filed a motion for rule to show cause as to why 

Respondent should not be suspended for non-cooperation. This Court 

ordered Respondent to respond within ten days. Only then did 

Respondent comply. Thereafter, the Court granted the Commission’s 

motion to dismiss the show cause petition and ordered Respondent to 

reimburse the Commission $519.89.

The hearing officer cited as an aggravating factor Respondent’s prior 

discipline and found no evidence in mitigation. The hearing officer 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-299 | November 16, 2018 Page 4 of 6

recommended Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 

three years without automatic reinstatement.

Discussion and Discipline 

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

Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 

prohibiting the following misconduct:

1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness.

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

of a matter. 

1.16(a)(2): Failure to withdraw from representation when the lawyer’s 

ability to represent the client is impaired.

1.16(d): Failure promptly to return to a client case file materials to 

which the client is entitled after termination of representation.

8.1(b): Failure to respond in a timely manner to the Commission’s 

demands for information. 

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

honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

Our analysis of appropriate discipline entails consideration of the 

nature of the misconduct, the duties violated by the respondent, any 

resulting or potential harm, the respondent’s state of mind, our duty to 

preserve the integrity of the profession, the risk to the public should we 

allow the respondent to continue in practice, and matters in mitigation 

and aggravation. See Matter of Newman, 958 N.E.2d 792, 800 (Ind. 2011).

Respondent was previously disciplined by public reprimand for failing 

to perfect an appeal for a client. See In re Brewer, 907 N.E.2d 965 (Ind. 

2009). In 2017, Respondent was the subject of two show cause 

proceedings. 

Respondent currently is under an interim suspension due to her 

conviction for a crime punishable as a felony, see Ind. Admission and 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-299 | November 16, 2018 Page 5 of 6

Discipline Rule 23(11.1)(a), and an administrative suspension for 

noncompliance with continuing education requirements. 

Respondent’s misconduct includes the neglect of multiple clients’ cases, 

the commission of a crime that reflects adversely on her fitness to practice 

law, and the failure to withdraw from cases when her drug abuse 

rendered her unable to represent clients. She has failed to accept 

responsibility for her misconduct and elected not to participate in these

disciplinary proceedings. 

“One of the functions of the disciplinary process is to protect the public 

from attorneys who are, for whatever reason, unfit to practice law.” Matter 

of Wright, , 648 N.E.2d 1148, 1150 (Ind. 1995). Misconduct of the magnitude 

here has resulted in a lengthy suspension or disbarment. See Matter of 

White, 81 N.E.3d 211 (Ind. 2017); Matter of Pierce, 80 N.E.3d 888 (Ind. 2017); 

Matter of Engebretsen, 976 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2012); Matter of Powell, 893 

N.E.2d 729 (Ind. 2008). The Commission has not sought disbarment in this 

case. The hearing officer recommended that Respondent be suspended for 

three years without automatic reinstatement. We agree with the hearing 

officer’s recommendation. After the suspension period, Respondent may 

be reinstated only after proving by clear and convincing evidence all of 

the factors enumerated in Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(b), which 

include genuine remorse for her misconduct, exemplary conduct since the 

discipline was imposed, and her fitness to practice law. 

Conclusion

Respondent already is under interim and administrative suspensions. 

For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends 

Respondent from the practice of law in this state for not less than three 

years, without automatic reinstatement, effective immediately. At the 

conclusion of the minimum period of suspension, Respondent may 

petition this Court for reinstatement to the practice of law in this state, 

provided Respondent pays the costs of this proceeding, fulfills the duties 

of a suspended attorney, and satisfies the requirements for reinstatement 

of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18). 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-299 | November 16, 2018 Page 6 of 6

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. The 

hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged.

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

Goff, J., did not participate.

N O A P P E A RA N C E F O R T H E R E S P O N D E N T

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

Aaron Johnson, Staff Attorney