Title: In the Matter of Anonymous
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 10S00-1006-DI-288
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: September 3, 2010

ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT 
Pro se 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary 
Angie L. Ordway, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 10S00-1006-DI-288 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANONYMOUS, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
_________________________________ 
 
 
September 3, 2010 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11), the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a "Statement of 
Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline" stipulating agreed facts and proposed 
discipline.  The Respondent's 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 finds that Respondent engaged in attorney 
misconduct by assisting in the unauthorized practice of law in this state.   For this misconduct, 
we find that Respondent should receive a private reprimand.   
 
 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Sep 03 2010, 10:34 am
 
2 
Background 
 
A Kentucky resident who was injured in a fall at a restaurant in Indiana sought legal 
assistance from a Kentucky lawyer, John Redelberger.  Respondent agreed to serve as local 
Indiana counsel.  Redelberger did not seek temporary admission to practice law in Indiana.  
Nevertheless, Redelberger and Respondent signed and filed an appearance for the client in an 
action filed in an Indiana trial court.  Without Respondent, Redelberger signed and served 
answers to interrogatories and took depositions of witnesses in Indiana.  After Redelberger 
appeared in court for the client, the judge informed Respondent that Redelberger was not 
admitted to practice in Indiana.  Respondent told Redelberger that he must seek temporary 
admission and sent him a copy of the applicable rule.  Neither Respondent nor Redelberger, 
however, followed through in obtaining temporary admission for Redelberger.   
 
The parties cite no facts in aggravation.  Facts in mitigation are:  (1) Respondent has no 
prior discipline; (2) he cooperated with the Commission; (3) he did not act from a selfish or 
dishonest motive; and (4) he is remorseful. 
 
Discussion 
 
The Indiana Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the admission to the practice 
of law in this state, the discipline of those admitted, and the unauthorized practice of law in this 
state.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4; Ind. Admis. Disc. R. 3(1); Ind. Admis. Disc. R. 23(1).  The 
Court's authority to set standards for and to supervise the practice of law emanates from the need 
to protect the public from those who are not properly licensed or otherwise qualified to act as 
attorneys.  See State ex rel. Disciplinary Comm'n v. Owen, 486 N.E.2d 1012, 1014 (Ind. 1986).  
To exercise this authority, it is essential that the Court know who is practicing law in Indiana.  
This Court has established procedures for general admission to practice in this state, see Ind. 
Admis. Disc. R. 6 through R. 22, and maintains a record of all attorneys so admitted, see Ind. 
Admis. Disc. R. 4.  As a matter of comity, this Court has also established a procedure under 
which attorneys not admitted in Indiana may be granted temporary admission (also called 
 
3 
admission pro hac vice) in cases pending in courts and other tribunals in this state if there is good 
cause for such appearance.  See Ind. Admis. Disc. R. 3(2). 
 
Before an out-of-state attorney petitions for temporary admission to appear in an Indiana 
court, he or she must pay a temporary admission fee to the Clerk of the Supreme Court and 
obtain a temporary admission attorney number from the Clerk.  See Admis. Disc. R. 3(2)(a)(3).  
Only then may the out-of-state attorney file a "Verified Petition for Temporary Admission" in 
the court in which the case is pending.  If that court enters an order granting temporary admission 
in the case, the out-of-state attorney is required to file a "Notice of Temporary Admission" with 
the Clerk of the Supreme Court within 30 days of the date of order.  See Admis. Disc. R. 3(2)(b).  
If the attorney fails to do so, the attorney is automatically excluded from the practice of law in all 
actions in this State.   See id.  Automatic exclusion from practice also results if the attorney fails 
to pay his or her annual renewal fee for each new calendar year.  See Admis. Disc. R. 3(2)(c).  
An out-of-state attorney may be charged with the unauthorized practice of law for actions taken 
in any Indiana case while under automatic exclusion from practice.  See Admis. Disc. R. 
3(2)(f)(3).   
 
The participation of Indiana co-counsel in the temporary admission process is of vital 
importance to this Court's ability to supervise out-of-state attorneys practicing in this state.  This 
is no minor or perfunctory duty.  Not all attorneys seeking temporary admission will be granted 
the privilege of practicing in Indiana.  See Matter of Fieger, 887 N.E.2d 87 (Ind. 2008) (two-year 
bar on applying for temporary admission imposed for misrepresentations in petition for 
temporary admission). Thus, an out-of-state attorney may seek temporary admission in an 
Indiana court only if a member of the bar of this state has appeared and agreed to act as co-
counsel.  See Admis. Disc. R. 3(2)(a)(1).  Indiana co-counsel must co-sign the out-of-state 
attorney's petition for temporary admission, which must include the attorney's temporary 
admission number and a receipt showing that the attorney has paid the temporary admission fee.  
See Admis. Disc. R. 3(2)(a)(4).  Indiana co-counsel must also sign all briefs, papers and 
pleadings in the case and is jointly responsible for them.  See Admis. Disc. R. 3(2)(d).  This 
signature constitutes a certificate that, to the best of co-counsel's knowledge, information and 
belief, there is good ground to support the document.  See id.  Indiana co-counsel is subject to 
 
4 
discipline if the out-of-state attorney fails to satisfy the requirements of the rule governing 
temporary admission.  See Admis. Disc. R. 3(2)(e); Matter of Hughes, 833 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. 
2005) (Indiana lawyer publicly reprimanded for assisting the unauthorized practice of law by 
allowing Michigan attorney to handle depositions and mediation in Indiana case).   
 
In the current case, Kentucky lawyer Redelberger ignored the rules setting forth the 
procedures for obtaining temporary admission in Indiana.  Respondent failed to discharge his 
responsibility to ensure that Redelberger was properly admitted to practice in the state before 
signing an appearance with him and allowing him to appear in court and take depositions in 
Indiana.  Respondent abdicated his joint responsibility for documents in the case by allowing 
Redelberger alone to sign answers to interrogatories.  When notified by the trial court that 
Redelberger was not admitted to practice in Indiana, Respondent's inadequate response was to 
give Redelberger a copy of the applicable rule, which apparently neither Redelberger nor 
Respondent had consulted up to that point.   As a result, this Court had no notice that 
Redelberger was practicing law in Indiana.    
 
The failure of out-of-state attorneys and their Indiana co-counsel to comply with the rule 
governing temporary admission is neither trivial nor rare.  Thus far in 2010, the Clerk has issued 
over 600 notices of automatic exclusion from practice, and this Court has entered orders granting 
relief from automatic exclusion to over 140 out-of-state attorneys.1  The need for this would be 
nearly eliminated if all Indiana co-counsel complied with their ethical duty to ensure that 
attorneys granted temporary admission in Indiana comply with Admission and Discipline Rule 
3(2).2   
 
                                                 
1 It is likely that a good number of automatically excluded attorneys are not currently practicing in 
Indiana but rather failed to comply with the requirement to notify the Clerk that the case in which they 
appeared concluded or they withdrew their appearances prior to 2010.  See Admis. Disc. R. 3(2)(c).  
Those attorneys nevertheless remain excluded from practice in Indiana in future cases until these defaults 
are cured.   
2 A small number of automatic exclusions result from a trial court's failure to serve an order granting 
temporary admission in time for the out-of-state attorney to file it with this Court within 30 days.  The 
vast majority of automatic exclusions result from procedural defaults by out-of-state attorneys, for which 
Indiana co-counsel are also responsible.  See Admis. Disc. R. 3(2)(e).  
 
5 
    The Court will approve the parties' suggestion that Respondent receive a private 
reprimand under the circumstances of this case.  However, Indiana attorneys serving as local 
counsel for out-of-state attorneys are hereby advised of the importance of their duty to ensure 
complete and timely compliance with all the requirements of Admission and Discipline Rule 
3(2).  Indiana attorneys who neglect that duty in future cases may be subject to more stringent 
discipline, and out-of-state attorneys who fail to comply with this rule may be sanctioned for the 
unauthorized practice of law in this state.   
 
Conclusion 
 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated Professional Conduct Rule 5.5(a) by 
assisting in the unauthorized practice of law in this state. 
   
The agreement submitted by Respondent and the Commission to resolve this case will be 
accepted by separate order, and Respondent will be privately reprimanded.  The costs of this 
proceeding are assessed against Respondent.   
 
The Clerk of this Court is directed to give notice of this opinion to the hearing officer, to 
the parties or their respective attorneys, and to all other entities entitled to notice under 
Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d).  The Clerk is further directed to post this opinion to the 
Court's website, and Thomson Reuters is directed to publish a copy of this opinion in the bound 
volumes of this Court's decisions. 
 
All Justices concur.