ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT

Michele S. Bryant

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT 

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

G. Michael Witte, Executive Director

David E. Griffith, Staff Attorney

Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________

No. 87S00-1604-DI-190

IN THE MATTER OF:

GENE D. EMMONS,

Respondent.

_________________________________

Attorney Discipline Action

_________________________________

February 14, 2017

Per Curiam.

We find that Respondent, Gene D. Emmons, engaged in attorney misconduct by

converting guardianship funds, failing to comply with court orders, and failing to cooperate with 

the disciplinary process. For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be suspended 

from the practice of law in this state for at least three years without automatic reinstatement. 

Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11) (2016), the Indiana Supreme 

Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a “Statement of 

Charges and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” stipulating agreed facts and proposed 

discipline. The Respondent’s 2008 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court’s 

disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. The Court approves the agreement and 

proposed discipline. 
2

Stipulated Facts

Respondent was appointed by the Warrick Circuit Court as guardian of an 88-year-old 

incapacitated woman (“Ward”) living in a nursing home. In his capacity as guardian, 

Respondent became a signatory on Ward’s “PTSB” and “PNC” bank accounts. Ward’s account 

at PTSB was an attorney fiduciary account subject to overdraft reporting to the Commission.

Without the required court authorization, Respondent wrote three checks from the PTSB 

account, totaling $20,000 and payable to himself, indicating in the subject lines that the checks 

were for legal fees. In early 2015, the court ordered Respondent to prepare a biennial accounting 

of the guardianship. Respondent failed to do so, and in March 2015 the court ordered 

Respondent removed as guardian. After appointing another attorney as guardian, the court 

ordered Respondent as the previous guardian to file a final accounting, which Respondent also 

failed to do. 

The court later ordered Respondent to appear and explain his failure to comply with the 

court-ordered accounting. Respondent failed to appear on the scheduled hearing date. 

Meanwhile, the Commission began investigating Respondent’s actions and demanded a 

response. Respondent failed to respond, leading to the initiation of show cause proceedings in 

this Court and, eventually, an indefinite suspension for noncooperation that remains in effect. 

Matter of Emmons, 52 N.E.3d 797 (Ind. 2016). Respondent also failed to timely comply with a 

subpoena duces tecum seeking production of his guardianship file, and when he did comply, the 

file he produced was incomplete.

The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 

prohibiting the following misconduct:

1.15(a): Failing to maintain complete records of client trust account funds and keep them for 

a period of five years after termination of the representation.

3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying court orders. 

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

authority. 
3

8.4(b): Committing a criminal act 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.

8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The parties also agree Respondent violated Rule 4(A)(2) of the Indiana Supreme Court 

Disciplinary Commission Rules Governing Attorney Trust Account Overdraft Reporting by 

failing to notify PTSB that Ward’s account at that bank was subject to overdraft reporting to the 

Commission.

The parties cite as facts in aggravation Respondent’s pattern of misconduct encompassing 

multiple offenses, his bad-faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding, and the vulnerability 

of Ward. In mitigation, the parties cite Respondent’s inexperience and lack of disciplinary 

record prior to the events described above. 

Discussion and Discipline

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 and the Commission propose that Respondent receive a suspension from the 

practice of law for a period of at least three years, without any “credit” being given for the time 

Respondent already has served under suspension due to his noncooperation. Respondent’s 

conversion of guardianship funds and subsequent efforts to conceal his actions from the trial 

court and Disciplinary Commission are among the most serious types of misconduct. The 

American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions provide that disbarment 

generally is appropriate when an attorney knowingly converts client property and causes injury 

or potential injury to a client, or when an attorney knowingly violates a court order or rule with 

the intent to benefit himself and in doing so causes serious injury or potentially serious injury to 
4

a party. See ABA Standards, Standards 4.11, 5.11, 6.21. However, in light of the agreed 

mitigating factors in this case, the Court’s desire to foster agreed resolutions of attorney 

disciplinary cases, and the protection to the public afforded by our discretionary reinstatement 

process, we approve the proposed discipline. To regain his privilege to practice law after his 

minimum period of suspension has elapsed, Respondent would be required to petition this Court 

for reinstatement and prove his professional rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. See

Admis. Disc. R. 23(18)(b) (2017).

Conclusion

The Court concludes that Respondent violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 

by converting guardianship funds, failing to comply with court orders, and failing to cooperate 

with the disciplinary process. Respondent already is under an order of indefinite suspension due 

to his noncooperation with the Commission’s investigation. For Respondent’s professional 

misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of 

not less than three years, without automatic reinstatement, effective from the date of this opinion. 

Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline 

Rule 23(26). 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). 

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. The hearing officer 

appointed in this case is discharged.

All Justices concur, except David, J., who would reject the conditional agreement.