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 Suprem e Court | Ca se 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 lawy er, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary proce ss. 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 appointe d by
this Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary

Commission ’s verified disciplinary complaint. Respondent’s 200 4 admission to this state’s bar subjects h er 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 C lerk 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 fa cts 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 a s 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 informedIndiana Suprem e Court | Ca se 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 te rminated. 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 hearing s res ulted 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. Res pondent 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 p araphernalia 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 misdeme anor.



### Count 13. On June 12, 2017, the Commission sent Respon d ent a
demand for a response to an investigation. After receiving no response,
the Commission filed a motion for r ule to sh ow c ause 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

.

T he hearing officer cited as an aggravating factor Respondent’s prior discipline and found no evidence in mitigation . The hearing officerIndiana Suprem e Court | Ca se 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 reinstate ment

.



## Discuss ion 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 fi le 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

pres erve 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 fa iling 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.

Respon d ent currently is under an interim suspension due to her

conviction for a crime punishable as a felony

, s e e Ind. Admission andIndiana Suprem e Court | Ca se 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.

R espondent ’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 p articipate in the se disciplinary proce edings.

“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 th e magnitude
here has resulted in a lengthy suspension or disbarment. See Matter of
White , 81 N.E.3d 211 (Ind. 201 7 ); Matter of Pierce , 80 N.E.3d 888 (Ind. 2017); Matter of Engebret s en, 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 recom m e n ded that Respondent be suspended for three years without automatic reinstatement

. We agree with the hearing
officer ’s recommendation. After the suspensio n 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 he r misconduct, exemplary conduct since the discipline was imposed, and her fitness to practice law.



## Conclusion

Respondent already is under interim and administrative suspension s. For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent fro m 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 Suprem e Court | Ca se No. 18S

- DI

- 299 | November 16, 2018 Page 6 of 6 The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Re spondent. 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 R A 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. M ichael Witte, Executive Director Aaron Johnson, Staff Attorney