Title: In the Matter of Glenn E. Davis, Jr.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 18S-DI-95
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: August 22, 2018

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-95 
In the Matter of 
Glenn E. Davis, Jr. 
 Respondent. 
Decided: August 22, 2018 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer James W. Riley, Jr. 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Aug 22 2018, 12:28 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-95 | August 22, 2018 
Page 2 of 5 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Glenn E. Davis, Jr., committed attorney 
misconduct by neglecting a client’s case and by failing to cooperate with 
the disciplinary process. For this misconduct, we conclude that 
Respondent should be suspended for at least one year without automatic 
reinstatement. 
The matter is now before us 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 
1976 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court’s disciplinary 
jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. 
Procedural Background and Facts 
The Commission filed a “Disciplinary Complaint” against Respondent 
on February 15, 2018. Respondent was served with the complaint but has 
not appeared, responded, or otherwise participated in these proceedings. 
Accordingly, the Commission filed a “Motion for Judgment on the 
Complaint,” and the hearing officer took the facts alleged in the 
disciplinary complaint as true. 
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). 
In June 2013, Respondent was hired by “Client,” an elderly woman, to 
pursue claims for damages she sustained in a fall while she was a patient 
at a rehabilitation facility. Client’s “Daughter” assisted Client in 
communicating with Respondent. 
Respondent timely filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint in 
June 2014. However, Respondent never filed the requisite submission of 
evidence to the medical review panel. This occurred notwithstanding 
multiple extensions of time and numerous outreach attempts by the panel 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-95 | August 22, 2018 
Page 3 of 5 
chair and opposing counsel, several attempts by Daughter to discuss the 
case with Respondent, and multiple promises by Respondent to Daughter 
that the submission would be filed. As a result of Respondent’s failure to 
submit evidence to the panel, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss in 
December 2016, and a hearing was scheduled for January 17, 2017. 
Respondent failed to notify Client of the motion to dismiss or the hearing, 
and he failed to appear at that hearing. After the hearing, the trial court 
granted the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, Respondent did not inform 
Client or Daughter of the dismissal and did not respond to Daughter’s 
multiple attempts to communicate with Respondent. 
Daughter filed a grievance with the Commission. Respondent did not 
timely respond to the Commission’s demand for a response to the 
grievance, and his belated response was misleading in several respects. 
Respondent later failed to comply with a subpoena duces tecum for 
Client’s file. To date, Respondent has not cured his noncooperation with 
the subpoena duces tecum, and as a result he currently is indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law. See Matter of Davis, 90 N.E.3d 1189 
(Ind. 2018). 
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(a)(4): Failure to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable 
requests for information. 
1.4(b): Failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary 
to permit a client to make informed decisions. 
8.1(b): Knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for 
information from a disciplinary authority. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-95 | August 22, 2018 
Page 4 of 5 
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’s misconduct in this case is aggravated by the resulting 
harm to his elderly client, whose medical malpractice claim was dismissed 
with prejudice after having been neglected by Respondent for several 
years. That a legal malpractice claim affords a potential avenue for 
delayed recovery is of comparatively small comfort, particularly for an 
aggrieved client who may not enjoy the luxury of time to pursue and 
recover upon such a claim.   
Although Respondent has no prior discipline, he has been the subject of 
four separate show cause proceedings within the last two years and 
currently is indefinitely suspended for noncooperation. Respondent also 
has been administratively suspended three times within the last eight 
years, once for nonpayment of dues and twice for noncompliance with 
continuing legal education requirements. Respondent has progressively 
absented himself from the multiple show cause proceedings against him 
and has wholly failed to participate in these disciplinary proceedings.    
With these considerations in mind, we conclude that a suspension of at 
least one year without automatic reinstatement, effective from the date of 
this opinion, is appropriate discipline for Respondent’s misconduct in this 
case. See Matter of Kern, 56 N.E.3d 623 (Ind. 2016); see also Matter of Daniels, 
39 N.E.3d 639 (Ind. 2015). 
Conclusion 
Respondent already is under an order of suspension for failure to 
cooperate with the Commission’s investigation. For Respondent’s 
professional misconduct in this case, the Court suspends Respondent from 
the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than one year, 
without automatic reinstatement, effective from the date of this opinion. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-95 | August 22, 2018 
Page 5 of 5 
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. 
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 
Angie L. Ordway, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana