Title: In the Matter of Charles R. Huston
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 18S-DI-258
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: August 8, 2018

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-258 
In the Matter of 
Charles R. Huston 
 Respondent. 
Decided: August 8, 2018 
Attorney Discipline Action 
  
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Aug 08 2018, 10:50 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-258 | August 8, 2018 
Page 2 of 4 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Charles Huston, engaged in conduct in 
contempt of this Court by practicing law while suspended. As sanctions 
for his contempt, we extend Respondent’s suspension, order him to pay a 
fine, and order Respondent to serve 15 days in prison if the fine is not 
timely paid. 
This matter is before the Court on the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission’s “Verified Petition for Rule to Show Cause.” 
Respondent’s 1986 admission to this state’s bar and his unauthorized 
practice of law in this state while suspended subject him to this Court’s 
disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.   
Discussion 
On December 7, 2017, this Court issued an order suspending 
Respondent from the practice of law, effective immediately, due to his 
noncooperation with an investigation by the Commission. On April 24, 
2018, Respondent’s suspension was converted to an indefinite suspension, 
which remains in effect. Matter of Huston, 95 N.E.3d 69 (Ind. 2018). 
The Commission filed a “Verified Petition for Rule to Show Cause” 
against Respondent on May 3, 2018, asserting Respondent practiced law in 
this state and held himself out as an attorney while suspended. 
Specifically, the Commission alleges that in February 2018, Respondent 
contacted the office of opposing counsel in “Case 1,” indicated he soon 
would be entering an appearance in Case 1, and asked if opposing counsel 
would object to a continuance. Opposing counsel pointed out that 
Respondent was suspended. The Commission further alleges that in 
March 2018, Respondent contacted opposing counsel in “Case 2” advising 
that Respondent would not be able to attend a hearing the following day 
and expressing Respondent’s desire to settle the case. When opposing 
counsel pointed out that Respondent was suspended, Respondent argued 
with opposing counsel about the merits of the case, again urged a 
settlement, threatened to sue both opposing counsel and the opposing 
party if they continued to prosecute Case 2, and threatened opposing 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-258 | August 8, 2018 
Page 3 of 4 
counsel with a suspension that would be worse than Respondent’s 
suspension. 
We issued an order on May 4, 2018, directing Respondent to show 
cause why he should not be held in contempt for disobedience to this 
Court’s order suspending him from practice. After certified mail sent to 
Respondent’s address was returned to the Clerk unclaimed, Respondent 
was served by constructive service on June 6, 2018. See Ind. Admission 
and Discipline Rule 23(23.1)(c). Respondent has not responded to the 
Commission’s petition or to this Court’s show cause order.1 We therefore 
find that Respondent has practiced law in violation of his suspension as 
asserted by the Commission in its verified petition. 
The sanctions this Court may impose for contempt include ordering a 
fine, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, imprisonment, and extension of an 
attorney’s suspension or removal from practice. See Matter of Campanella, 
83 N.E.3d 696 (Ind. 2017). As we did in Campanella, we conclude that a fine 
and extension of Respondent’s suspension are warranted here, and that 
Respondent should serve a period of imprisonment if he fails to timely 
pay his fine in full.2   
Conclusion 
We conclude that Respondent engaged in conduct in contempt of this 
Court by practicing law on multiple occasions while suspended, and we 
impose the following sanctions for Respondent’s contempt.   
The Court fines Respondent $750. Respondent shall remit this amount 
within thirty (30) days of service of this opinion to the Clerk of the 
Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax Court. 
                                                 
1 The Commission additionally filed a “Praecipe” on July 3, 2018, to which Respondent also 
has not responded. 
2 Because there is no allegation or evidence before us that Respondent charged or collected 
any fee for his unauthorized practice of law, we decline the Commission’s request to order 
disgorgement in this case. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-258 | August 8, 2018 
Page 4 of 4 
If Respondent fails to pay the $750 fine in full by the deadline set 
forth above, this Court shall order Respondent to serve a term of 
imprisonment for a period of 15 days, without the benefit of good time, 
and the Sheriff of the Supreme Court of Indiana will be directed to take 
Respondent into custody and turn him over to the Indiana Department of 
Correction. Respondent may avoid said imprisonment only upon 
payment in full of the $750 fine assessed against him within the deadline 
set forth above. In the event Respondent fails to timely pay his $750 fine in 
full and serves the resulting term of imprisonment, Respondent thereafter 
shall be released from the obligation to pay the assessed fine. 
Finally, the Court orders that the minimum length of Respondent’s 
current suspension from the practice of law in this state be extended and 
that Respondent remain suspended for a period of not less than two 
years, without automatic reinstatement, effective from the date of this 
opinion. 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent and will 
be taxed by separate order. 
All Justices concur. 
N O  A P P EA RA N CE FO R  T H E  RE SP O N D EN T  
 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  I ND I A NA SU P RE ME CO U R T 
D I SC I PL I NA R Y C OMM ISS I O N 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Director 
Aaron Johnson, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana