Title: In the Matter of Anonymous
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 36S00-0811-DI-605
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: October 5, 2009

ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT 
Kerry Thompson 
Scottsburg, Indiana 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary 
Rom Byron, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 36S00-0811-DI-605 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANONYMOUS, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Honorable Judith A. Stewart, Hearing Officer 
_________________________________ 
 
 
October 5, 2009 
 
Per Curiam. 
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 
Complaint for Disciplinary Action," and on the post-hearing briefing by the parties.  We find that 
Respondent engaged in attorney misconduct by failing to surrender to a former client papers to 
which he was entitled.  
    
 
The Respondent's admission to this state's bar subjects him to this Court's disciplinary 
jurisdiction.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.  For his misconduct, we find that Respondent should 
receive a private reprimand. 
 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Oct 05 2009, 4:00 pm
 
2 
Background 
A criminal defendant (“Client”) was charged with three counts of auto theft.  Respondent 
was appointed as Client's public defender in September 2006.  In late October 2006, Client sent a 
letter to Respondent requesting a copy of the State's responses to his discovery request in his 
case, and he stated a willingness to sign a plea bargain agreement if the State would allow his 
sentence to run concurrently with a sentence he was already serving.  The following month, 
Respondent met with Client and discussed a proposed plea agreement.  Respondent reviewed 
discovery materials with Client but did not provide him copies.  Client accepted the plea 
agreement and entered a guilty plea.  The trial court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced 
Client on November 13, 2006.  Respondent's representation of Client concluded on that date.  
Client did not indicate to Respondent any intention to appeal, and he did not pursue an appeal.  
Respondent reasonably believed that Client's earlier request for a copy of the discovery materials 
was no longer pending at that point. 
 
By letter dated February 2, 2007, Client requested a "copy of the discovery" in his case 
and "all other court documents."  He did not indicate why he was requesting these materials.  On 
March 5, 2007, Respondent sent Client a letter and his sentencing order but no other documents 
from the case.  The letter told Client that his representation ended on the date of sentencing and 
Respondent was "not going to waste a lot of needless time and money sending stuff that's 
irrelevant for what you're obviously planning to do and that's filing some sort of post-conviction 
relief petition and all the litigation that goes with it."   Respondent also sent Client a copy of a 
Court of Appeals' decision in a post-conviction relief ("PCR") case and suggested he "read it 
about 14 times before you file any sort of PCR petition in your case." 
 
Client filed a grievance against Respondent with the Commission.  After the Commission 
filed a verified complaint charging Respondent with violation of Profession Conduct Rule 
1.16(d), Respondent's counsel sent Client a copy of the entire contents of Respondent's file on 
Client's case.   
 
After an evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer concluded Respondent violated Rule 
1.16(d) by not providing Client a copy of the State's responses to his discovery request after 
 
3 
Client requested it in his February 2, 2007, letter.  The hearing officer, however, concluded that 
Client's request for other documents was too vague and that the Commission had not proven that 
Respondent violated Rule 1.16(d) by not providing Client a copy of documents besides the 
discovery materials.  The hearing officer recommended the Respondent receive a private 
reprimand. 
 
The Commission filed a Petition for Review pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 
23(15)(a), challenging only the hearing officer's recommended sanction.  In his brief in response, 
Respondent argues in favor of a private reprimand and does not challenge the hearing officer's 
conclusion the he violated Rule 1.16(d) by not providing Client with copies of the discovery 
materials. 
Discussion 
Obligation to turn over documents to former clients generally.  The rule Respondent is 
charged with violating reads: 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent 
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable 
notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering 
papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance 
payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may 
retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. 
 
Prof. Cond. R. 1.16(d) ("the Rule") (emphasis added).  On a related note, the Indiana Code 
provides: 
If, on request, an attorney refuses to deliver over money or papers to a person 
from whom or for whom the attorney has received them, in the course of the 
attorney's professional employment, the attorney may be required, after 
reasonable notice, on motion of any party aggrieved, by an order of the court in 
which an action, if any, was prosecuted or if an action was not prosecuted, by the 
order of any court of record, to deliver the money or papers within a specified 
time, or show cause why the attorney should not be punished for contempt. 
  
Ind. Code § 33-43-1-9 ("the Statute") (emphasis added).      
 
Client's entitlement to copies of discovery materials.  Neither the Rule nor the Statute 
requires an attorney to honor all demands from former clients for copies of everything in their 
 
4 
files.  As relevant to the current case, the Rule ties the requirement to protecting the client's legal 
interests.  Although Client did not tell Respondent why he was requesting a copy of the State's 
responses to his discovery request, Respondent assumed Client wanted them to file a PCR action.  
Providing these documents for this purpose is tied to protecting Client's legal interests, whether 
or not Respondent believed there was any merit to such an action.  There is no suggestion that it 
was not practicable for Respondent to make and send copies of the discovery materials to Client.  
Respondent at this point does not deny that he violated the Rule by failing to do so.   
 
Discipline.  The Commission contends Respondent should receive a public reprimand, 
arguing that Respondent's misconduct was intentional, that Client's incarceration made him a 
vulnerable victim, and that Client's interests were harmed by not receiving the discovery 
materials when requested.  The Court, however, notes in mitigation that there was no complaint 
about the quality of Respondent's representation, that there is no showing of any actual legal 
harm to Client, and Respondent has no prior disciplinary record in over 25 years of practice.  On 
balance, we conclude that a private reprimand is sufficient under the circumstances of this case.   
Conclusion 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(d) by not 
providing Client a copy of the State's responses to his discovery request after Client requested it 
in his February 2, 2007, letter.  For Respondent's professional misconduct, the Court imposes a 
private reprimand.   
 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.  The hearing officer 
appointed in this case is discharged. 
 
The Clerk of this Court is directed to give notice of this opinion to the hearing officer and 
to the parties or their respective attorneys.  The Clerk is further directed to post this opinion to 
the Court's website, and Thomson Reuters is directed to publish a copy of this opinion in the 
bound volumes of this Court's decisions. 
 
All Justices concur.