Title: In the Matter of Stephen W. Schuyler
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 18S-DI-184
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: May 22, 2018

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-184 
In the Matter of  
Stephen W. Schuyler 
 Respondent. 
Decided: May 22, 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
May 22 2018, 2:53 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-184 | May 22, 2018 
Page 2 of 5 
Per Curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Stephen Schuyler, engaged in attorney 
misconduct by stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from six 
supervised estates, failing to comply with court orders, and failing to 
cooperate with the disciplinary process. For this misconduct, we conclude 
that Respondent should be disbarred. 
Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(12.1)(b), 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. Respondent’s 1982 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 proposed discipline. 
Stipulated Facts 
Respondent currently is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law 
due to his noncooperation with the Commission’s investigation into the 
conduct described below. Matter of Schuyler, 54 N.E.3d 344 (Ind. 2016). 
Respondent also currently is under an interim suspension due to his 
felony conviction arising from the conduct described below. Matter of 
Schuyler, 82 N.E.3d 878 (Ind. 2017). 
Respondent served as either the personal representative, or counsel for 
the personal representative, in six supervised estates opened for probate 
in Madison County. Over the course of several years, Respondent stole at 
least $550,000 from the six estates. As a result, Respondent was criminally 
charged with fifteen felony counts: (1) eight counts of theft as Class C, 
Class D, or Level 6 felonies; (2) five counts of check deception as Level 5 or 
Level 6 felonies; and (3) two counts of corrupt business influence as Class 
C or Level 5 felonies. Respondent pled guilty as charged and, in June 2017, 
Respondent was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to 
concurrent terms of incarceration totaling eight years and ordered to pay 
restitution. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-184 | May 22, 2018 
Page 3 of 5 
In the estate case that prompted the initial disciplinary grievance filed 
with the Commission, Respondent failed to comply with court orders for 
accounting and to distribute assets, and he failed to appear at multiple 
hearings despite being ordered to do so, resulting in the issuance of a 
bench warrant for Respondent’s arrest. After this warrant was issued, 
Respondent tendered a check to the sole residual beneficiary of the estate 
in the amount ordered by the court to be distributed, but the check was 
dishonored due to insufficient funds. The court set the matter for another 
hearing, which Respondent again failed to attend. The court then removed 
Respondent as the estate’s administrator and appointed a successor 
administrator. An accounting done by the successor administrator 
revealed that Respondent had made unauthorized payments from the 
estate to himself totaling approximately $164,000. 
The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional 
Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct: 
3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying a court order. 
8.1(b): Knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for 
information from a disciplinary authority. 
8.4(b): Committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. 
8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation. 
The parties cite numerous facts in aggravation, including among other 
things that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct that was 
illegal in nature, his victims were vulnerable, and Respondent has prior 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-184 | May 22, 2018 
Page 4 of 5 
discipline. See Matter of Schuyler, 894 N.E.2d 543 (Ind. 2008).1 The parties 
cite Respondent’s acceptance of responsibility in the criminal and 
disciplinary actions, and the imposition of criminal penalties for his 
conduct, as facts in mitigation. 
Discussion and Discipline 
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). 
These considerations point in a single direction here, and the parties’ 
conditional agreement appropriately proposes that Respondent be 
disbarred. “Misappropriation of client funds is a grave transgression. It 
demonstrates a conscious desire to accomplish an unlawful act, denotes a 
lack of virtually all personal characteristics we deem important to law 
practice, threatens to bring significant misfortune on the unsuspecting 
client and severely impugns the integrity of the profession.” Matter of Hill, 
655 N.E.2d 343, 345 (Ind. 1995). We have consistently disbarred attorneys 
                                                 
1 We find it particularly troubling that Respondent’s prior discipline also involved the theft of 
funds from a probate estate: 
Beginning in May 2001, Respondent represented the probate estate of E.C. From 
August 1 through December 31, 2001, Respondent’s office manager-paralegal, S.J., 
wrote nine unauthorized checks totaling $34,000 on the estate’s account. When 
preparing the final account in May 2002, Respondent made no effort to ensure it 
accurately reflected actual transactions in the estate’s account. When the estate’s 
personal representative later discovered the unauthorized checks, Respondent failed 
to conduct any review. When the Anderson Police Department told Respondent that 
S.J. was responsible for the unauthorized checks, Respondent continued to employ 
S.J. until she resigned in May 2003. S.J. eventually pled guilty to Aiding, Inducing or 
Causing Theft, a class D felony. 
Id. at 543. Respondent’s lackadaisical supervision and remediation of his paralegal’s conduct 
take on a new light when viewed through the lens of his current misconduct. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-184 | May 22, 2018 
Page 5 of 5 
who have committed similar misconduct. See, e.g., id.; Matter of Durham, 55 
N.E.3d 302 (Ind. 2016); Matter of Steele, 45 N.E.3d 777 (Ind. 2015); Matter of 
Stochel, 34 N.E.3d 1207 (Ind. 2015). We unhesitatingly do so here as well. 
Conclusion 
Respondent already is under orders of indefinite and interim 
suspension. For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court disbars 
Respondent from the practice of law in this state, effective immediately. 
Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a disbarred attorney under 
Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). The costs of this proceeding are 
assessed against Respondent. 
All Justices concur. 
R E S P ON D E NT  P R O  S E  
Stephen W. Schuyler 
Pendleton, 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 
David E. Griffith, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana