Case Name: In the Matter of Lynn Morrow MALKOWSKI
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 2002-12-16
Citations: 779 N.E.2d 1154
Docket Number: No. 45S00-0107-DI-320
Parties: In the Matter of Lynn Morrow MALKOWSKI.
Judges: SHEPARD, C.J., and SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: North Eastern Reporter 2d
Volume: 779
Pages: 1154–1155

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Lynn Morrow MALKOWSKI.
No. 45S00-0107-DI-320.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Dec. 16, 2002.

Opinion:
ORDER APPROVING STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONAL AGREEMENT FOR DISCIPLINE
Pursuant to Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 11, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and the respondent have submitted for approval a Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline stipulating a proposed discipline and agreed facts as summarized below:
Facts: The parties agree that, without the knowledge of the opposing party or counsel, the respondent added a "nune pro tune" retroactive effective date to a stipulation concerning modification of child support before submitting the stipulation to the court for signature. The trial court judge signed the order on April 17, 2000. The respondent's addition backdated the effective date of the modification to July
28, 1999. After the opposing party objected to the signed order, the trial court struck the added language and ordered the respondent to pay opposing counsel's fees.
Violations: The respondent violated Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(1), which provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to a tribunal, and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Discipline: Thirty-day suspension from the practice of law, effective January 25, 2003, with automatic reinstatement thereafter.
The Court, having considered the submission of the parties, now APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline, noting, however, that it does so largely because it is an agreed resolution. Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent. The Clerk is directed to provide notice of this order to the hearing officer and all parties and entities as directed by Admis.Disc.R. 23(8)(d).
SHEPARD, C.J., and SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.