Title: In the Matter of:  Joseph C. Lehman
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 20S00-1507-DI-431
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: July 21, 2016

RESPONDENT PRO SE 
Joseph C. Lehman 
Goshen, Indiana 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary 
Aaron Johnson, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 20S00-1507-DI-431 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JOSEPH C. LEHMAN, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer David L. Chidester 
_________________________________ 
 
 
July 21, 2016 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We find that Respondent, Joseph Lehman, engaged in conduct in contempt of this Court 
by repeatedly engaging in the practice of law while suspended.  For his contempt, 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 “Verified 
Petition for Rule to Show Cause.”  Respondent’s 1991 admission to this state’s bar and his 
unauthorized practice of law in this state while suspended subject him to this Court’s disciplinary 
jurisdiction.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.   
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jul 21 2016, 10:32 am
 
 
2 
Discussion 
 
By order of February 19, 2014, this Court suspended Respondent from the practice of law 
for not less than two years, effective April 3, 2014, for repeated violations of multiple rules 
governing professional conduct.  Respondent’s misconduct included systemic negligence in 
client representations, improper disposal of closed files resulting in the disclosure of confidential 
information, improper trust account management, and numerous judicial findings of contempt 
for failing to appear at hearings.  See Matter of Lehman, 3 N.E.3d 536 (Ind. 2014).  He has not 
sought reinstatement. 
 
On or about the date his active suspension began, Respondent entered his appearance as 
counsel for the mother in a paternity action.  Two months later, after the paternity court had 
ordered Respondent’s appearance be withdrawn due to his suspension, Respondent filed with the 
court a minute entry purporting to represent the mother as her “translator” and requesting a final 
hearing be set.  As a result of that conduct, we issued an order finding Respondent in contempt 
and ordering Respondent to pay a fine of $500 within sixty days.  Matter of Lehman, ___ N.E.3d 
___, 2015 WL 10844474 (Ind. Oct. 7, 2015).  Respondent has not paid that fine. 
 
On July 22, 2015, the Commission filed another verified petition for rule to show cause 
against Respondent, alleging that in separate instances during the fall of 2014, Respondent 
provided legal consultation to two individuals, and sought and received payment from those 
individuals in return.  We appointed a hearing officer to hear the matter.1  The hearing officer 
filed his “Findings of Fact and Recommendation of Sanction” on March 15, 2016.  Neither party 
has filed a petition for review of those findings or a brief on sanctions.  We accept and adopt the 
hearing officer’s findings that Respondent violated this Court’s order suspending him from the 
practice of law. 
 
                                                 
1 Separately, Respondent was criminally charged with, and found guilty of, three counts of unauthorized 
practice of law in connection with these acts and others.  The Court of Appeals recently affirmed 
Respondent’s convictions.  Lehman v. State, ___ N.E.3d ___, 2016 WL 3058293 (Ind. Ct. App. May 31, 
2016), trans. pending. 
 
 
3 
The sanctions this Court may impose for contempt include ordering a fine, disgorgement 
of ill-gotten gains, imprisonment, and extension of an attorney’s suspension or removal from 
practice.  See Matter of Hurtt, 43 N.E.3d 567 (Ind. 2015); Matter of Haigh, 7 N.E.3d 980 (Ind. 
2014).  Respondent’s repeated contemptuous acts over the years have resulted in fines, 
imprisonment, and the suspension of his law license.  None of the sanctions previously imposed 
has deterred Respondent from continuing to engage in the practice of law in defiance of his 
suspension order, and Respondent’s repeated violations of that order have exposed the public to 
the danger of misconduct by an attorney who has yet to prove his remorse, rehabilitation, and 
fitness to practice law through the reinstatement process.  Under these circumstances, the Court 
concludes that disbarment is warranted.           
 
 
Conclusion 
 
The Court concludes that Respondent engaged in conduct in contempt of this Court by 
practicing law on multiple occasions while suspended.  For Respondent’s contempt, 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. 
 
All Justices concur.