Title: In the Matter of: Gene D. Emmons
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 87S00-1604-DI-190
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: February 14, 2017

ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT 
Michele S. Bryant 
Evansville, Indiana 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Director 
David E. Griffith, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 87S00-1604-DI-190 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GENE D. EMMONS, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
_________________________________ 
 
 
February 14, 2017 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We find that Respondent, Gene D. Emmons, engaged in attorney misconduct by 
converting guardianship funds, failing to comply with court orders, and failing to cooperate with 
the disciplinary process.  For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be suspended 
from the practice of law in this state for at least three years without automatic reinstatement.   
  
Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11) (2016), the Indiana Supreme 
Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a “Statement of 
Charges and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” stipulating agreed facts and proposed 
discipline.  The Respondent’s 2008 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.   
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Feb 14 2017, 11:03 am
 
 
2 
Stipulated Facts 
 
 
Respondent was appointed by the Warrick Circuit Court as guardian of an 88-year-old 
incapacitated woman (“Ward”) living in a nursing home.  In his capacity as guardian, 
Respondent became a signatory on Ward’s “PTSB” and “PNC” bank accounts.  Ward’s account 
at PTSB was an attorney fiduciary account subject to overdraft reporting to the Commission. 
 
 
 
Without the required court authorization, Respondent wrote three checks from the PTSB 
account, totaling $20,000 and payable to himself, indicating in the subject lines that the checks 
were for legal fees.  In early 2015, the court ordered Respondent to prepare a biennial accounting 
of the guardianship.  Respondent failed to do so, and in March 2015 the court ordered 
Respondent removed as guardian.  After appointing another attorney as guardian, the court 
ordered Respondent as the previous guardian to file a final accounting, which Respondent also 
failed to do.     
 
 
The court later ordered Respondent to appear and explain his failure to comply with the 
court-ordered accounting.  Respondent failed to appear on the scheduled hearing date.  
Meanwhile, the Commission began investigating Respondent’s actions and demanded a 
response.  Respondent failed to respond, leading to the initiation of show cause proceedings in 
this Court and, eventually, an indefinite suspension for noncooperation that remains in effect.  
Matter of Emmons, 52 N.E.3d 797 (Ind. 2016).  Respondent also failed to timely comply with a 
subpoena duces tecum seeking production of his guardianship file, and when he did comply, the 
file he produced was incomplete. 
 
 
The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 
prohibiting the following misconduct: 
 
1.15(a): Failing to maintain complete records of client trust account funds and keep them for 
a period of five years after termination of the representation. 
3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying court orders.  
8.1(b): Knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary 
authority.    
 
 
3 
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. 
8.4(d):  Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. 
 
The parties also agree Respondent violated Rule 4(A)(2) of the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission Rules Governing Attorney Trust Account Overdraft Reporting by 
failing to notify PTSB that Ward’s account at that bank was subject to overdraft reporting to the 
Commission. 
 
The parties cite as facts in aggravation Respondent’s pattern of misconduct encompassing 
multiple offenses, his bad-faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding, and the vulnerability 
of Ward.  In mitigation, the parties cite Respondent’s inexperience and lack of disciplinary 
record prior to the events described above.   
 
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). 
 
 
Respondent and the Commission propose that Respondent receive a suspension from the 
practice of law for a period of at least three years, without any “credit” being given for the time 
Respondent already has served under suspension due to his noncooperation.  Respondent’s 
conversion of guardianship funds and subsequent efforts to conceal his actions from the trial 
court and Disciplinary Commission are among the most serious types of misconduct.  The 
American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions provide that disbarment 
generally is appropriate when an attorney knowingly converts client property and causes injury 
or potential injury to a client, or when an attorney knowingly violates a court order or rule with 
the intent to benefit himself and in doing so causes serious injury or potentially serious injury to 
 
 
4 
a party.  See ABA Standards, Standards 4.11, 5.11, 6.21.  However, in light of the agreed 
mitigating factors in this case, the Court’s desire to foster agreed resolutions of attorney 
disciplinary cases, and the protection to the public afforded by our discretionary reinstatement 
process, we approve the proposed discipline.  To regain his privilege to practice law after his 
minimum period of suspension has elapsed, Respondent would be required to petition this Court 
for reinstatement and prove his professional rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence.  See 
Admis. Disc. R. 23(18)(b) (2017). 
 
Conclusion 
 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 
by converting guardianship funds, failing to comply with court orders, and failing to cooperate 
with the disciplinary process.  Respondent already is under an order of indefinite suspension due 
to his noncooperation with the Commission’s investigation.  For Respondent’s professional 
misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of 
not less than three years, without automatic reinstatement, effective from the date of this opinion.  
Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline 
Rule 23(26).  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, except David, J., who would reject the conditional agreement.