Title: In the Matter of Steven T. Fulk
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 19S-DI-277
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: June 15, 2020

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 19S-DI-277 
In the Matter of 
Steven T. Fulk, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: June 15, 2020 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Lloyd H. Milliken, Jr. 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jun 15 2020, 9:24 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-277 | June 15, 2020 
Page 2 of 5 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Steven Fulk, committed attorney misconduct 
by neglecting a client’s case, converting an employee’s tax withholdings 
for his own personal use, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary 
process. For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be 
disbarred. 
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 “Disciplinary Complaint.” Respondent’s 1995 
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 its two-count disciplinary complaint against 
Respondent on May 8, 2019. Respondent was served but never properly 
appeared or responded. Accordingly, the Commission filed an 
“Application for Judgment on the Complaint,” and the hearing officer 
took the facts alleged in the 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). 
Count 1. Respondent represented the ex-husband (“Client”) in post-
dissolution matters in Hamilton County. In December 2017, the ex-wife 
filed a motion for rule to show cause alleging Client had failed to 
reimburse his portion of uninsured medical and dental expenses for 
several years. A hearing on the matter was scheduled for April 3, 2018. 
Both the court and opposing counsel sent notice of the hearing date to 
Respondent. After neither Client nor Respondent appeared for the April 3 
hearing, Client was found in contempt and ordered to pay back medical 
and dental support and attorney fees within 45 days. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-277 | June 15, 2020 
Page 3 of 5 
Client later filed a letter with the court indicating that the first he had 
learned of the hearing or the court order was in an email sent by his ex-
wife about five weeks after the hearing. In that letter and a subsequent 
letter, Client informed the court he had attempted without success to 
contact Respondent multiple times and by multiple means. Client 
requested that the court vacate its contempt order, remove Respondent 
from the case, and allow Client to proceed pro se. Client’s pro se efforts to 
obtain relief from the contempt order were unsuccessful, and the court 
later reduced that order to a civil judgment against Client in the amount of 
$2,545.35.   
When the Commission opened an investigation, Respondent failed to 
substantively respond to the Commission’s demand for information or 
comply with a subpoena duces tecum for Client’s file. 
Count 2. Respondent employed “Assistant” from 2005 until Assistant 
quit in early 2018. During that time Respondent withheld money for Social 
Security from Assistant’s earnings, but instead of depositing those sums 
with the federal government, he instead converted those funds for his 
own personal use.  
In late 2017 Assistant received a Social Security statement showing she 
had no earnings for any of the years she had worked for Respondent. 
Assistant confronted Respondent about this and Respondent promised he 
would get it corrected, but Respondent never did so. Respondent also 
failed to respond to the Commission’s demand for information on this 
matter. 
Discussion 
We concur in the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclude that 
Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 
prohibiting the following misconduct: 
1.4(a)(3): Failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-277 | June 15, 2020 
Page 4 of 5 
3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules or an 
order of a court. 
8.1(b): Knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for 
information from a disciplinary authority. 
8.4(b): Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. 
8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation. 
“In exercising our disciplinary authority, we have an obligation to 
protect the public and the profession from the tactics of unscrupulous 
lawyers.” Matter of Johnson, 53 N.E.3d 1177, 1180 (Ind. 2016). Respondent 
stole earnings from Assistant (his sole employee) during the entire twelve-
plus years of her employment, violating both state and federal criminal 
law in the process. Respondent severely neglected Client’s case, resulting 
in financial detriment to Client. Respondent has shown absolutely no 
remorse for, or insight into, his misconduct. Respondent refused to 
cooperate with the Commission’s investigations, has refused to 
meaningfully participate in these disciplinary proceedings, and has filed 
no petition for review, brief on sanction, or responsive brief in this Court. 
Under these circumstances, and based on the record before us, we 
conclude that Respondent should be disbarred. 
Conclusion 
Respondent already is under an order of indefinite suspension for 
noncooperation. 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, and the hearing officer appointed in this 
case is discharged with the Court’s appreciation. 
All Justices concur. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-277 | June 15, 2020 
Page 5 of 5 
R E S P ON D E NT  P R O  S E  
Steven T. Fulk 
Indianapolis, 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