Title: In the Matter of Larry W. Rogers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 64S00-1704-DI-251
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: November 2, 2018

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 64S00-1704-DI-251 
In the Matter of 
Larry W. Rogers, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: November 2, 2018 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Daniel J. Molter 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Nov 02 2018, 9:55 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 64S00-1704-DI-251 | November 2, 2018 
Page 2 of 5 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Larry Rogers, committed attorney 
misconduct by neglecting an appeal and then failing to refund the 
unearned fee. For this misconduct, we suspend Respondent for 90 days, 
with the manner of his reinstatement conditional upon full restitution 
being made. 
This matter is before the Court 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 
1977 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court’s disciplinary 
jurisdiction. 
Procedural Background and Facts  
The Commission filed a “Disciplinary Complaint” against Respondent 
on April 25, 2017, and we appointed a hearing officer. Following an 
evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer issued his report on August 16, 
2018, finding Respondent committed violations as charged. 
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). 
After “Defendant” was convicted in March 2015 of murder and battery, 
but before sentencing, Respondent met with Defendant to discuss an 
appeal. After that meeting, Defendant and/or several of Defendant’s 
family members paid Respondent $8,000 as part of his fee. Defendant was 
sentenced in May 2015 and a motion to correct error filed by his trial 
counsel was denied on July 14, 2015. Six days later, Respondent notified 
Defendant of the 30-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal and that 
further payment for transcript costs was needed. 
Respondent did not file a notice of appeal and the deadline for doing so 
passed. Respondent did not notify Defendant he had failed to file the 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 64S00-1704-DI-251 | November 2, 2018 
Page 3 of 5 
notice of appeal and did not communicate with Defendant for several 
months. Eventually, Defendant fired Respondent, requested appointment 
of counsel to pursue a belated appeal, and demanded a refund from 
Respondent.  
To date, Respondent has failed to refund any money to Defendant or 
his family, despite multiple requests made by Defendant’s family and 
despite Respondent’s acknowledgement that a refund is owed. 
Discussion and Discipline 
We concur in the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclude that 
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.  
1.4(b): Failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary 
to permit a client to make informed decisions. 
1.16(d): Failure to refund an unearned fee and to protect the client’s 
interests upon termination of representation. 
Neither party has filed a brief on sanction. We agree with the hearing 
officer’s succinct and eloquent assessment of this case. Respondent has 
served his community and profession with distinction for over four 
decades and, until just recently, had an unblemished disciplinary record. 
We also are mindful of the significant personal hardship Respondent was 
experiencing around the time of his neglect of Defendant’s appeal. That 
said, we are deeply concerned about Respondent’s ongoing and 
inexplicable failure, now more than three years later, to issue a refund that 
Respondent consistently has acknowledged is owed and that Respondent 
has claimed he is “ready, willing and able” to pay. (Comm’n Ex. G at 1.) 
We also are concerned about the relative lack of attention devoted by 
Respondent to this disciplinary proceeding and to a contemporaneous 
proceeding involving Respondent’s noncooperation with another 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 64S00-1704-DI-251 | November 2, 2018 
Page 4 of 5 
disciplinary investigation, a shortcoming that Respondent’s few pleadings 
appear to attribute to a heavy caseload. We remind Respondent that 
attorneys have a duty to cooperate with the disciplinary process. We also 
take this opportunity to remind Respondent (and all attorneys) that 
although a commitment to helping others is commendable, clients are best 
served when an attorney has secured his or her own oxygen mask first.1   
After careful consideration, we conclude that Respondent should be 
suspended for 90 days, effective December 14, 2018. We further conclude 
that the manner of Respondent’s reinstatement following this 90-day 
period should be conditional upon his making restitution to Defendant 
and/or Defendant’s family. If Respondent refunds the unearned $8,000 fee 
in full2 and files with this Court a verified accounting and report of same 
on or before March 1, 2019, then he shall be automatically reinstated to the 
practice of law in Indiana at the conclusion of his 90-day suspension, 
subject to the conditions of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(a). If 
Respondent has not made this refund and filed this verified accounting by 
March 1, 2019, then Respondent shall not be automatically reinstated and 
instead shall be required to satisfy the requirements of Admission and 
Discipline Rule 23(18)(b) prior to resuming practice. Further, any petition 
for reinstatement filed pursuant to Rule 23(18)(b) shall be accompanied by 
proof that a full refund has been made and shall be subject to summary 
dismissal if such proof is lacking.  
Conclusion 
The Court concludes Respondent violated Professional Conduct Rules 
1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(b), and 1.16(d). For Respondent’s professional 
                                                 
1 See Linda Rekas Sloan, Esq., Secure Your Own Mask First, Rhode Island Bar Journal 3 
(Jan./Feb. 2018); see also Jeena Cho, A Distressing Business, ABA Journal, June 2018, at 29.  
2 Despite Respondent’s claim to have earned a portion of this fee, Respondent was unable to 
produce Defendant’s client file or adequately document any work he performed on the case. 
Respondent explained, “I can only make an educated guess regarding the time spent on this 
case.” (Comm’n Ex. E at 2.) Under the circumstances we find Respondent is not entitled to 
retain any portion of the $8,000 paid to him on Defendant’s behalf. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 64S00-1704-DI-251 | November 2, 2018 
Page 5 of 5 
misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent for 90 days, effective 
December 14, 2018. Respondent shall not undertake any new legal matters 
between service of this order and the effective date of the suspension, and 
Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under 
Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).  
If Respondent makes a full refund and files a verified accounting by 
March 1, 2019, he shall be automatically reinstated to the practice of law at 
the conclusion of the 90-day period of suspension. If Respondent does not 
make a full refund and file a verified accounting by March 1, 2019, then 
his suspension shall be served without automatic reinstatement, and 
Respondent may not thereafter resume practice until he has shown a 
refund has been made and has satisfied the requirements of Admission 
and Discipline Rule 23(18)(b). 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. The 
hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged. 
 
All Justices concur. 
R E S P ON D E NT  P R O  S E  
Larry W. Rogers 
Valparaiso, Indiana 
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 
Julie E. Bennett, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana