Title: In the Matter of Kirmille D. Lewis
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 18S-DI-102
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: December 28, 2018

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-102 
In the Matter of 
Kirmille D. Lewis, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: December 28, 2018 
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
Dec 28 2018, 9:50 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-102 | December 28, 2018 
Page 2 of 6 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Kirmille Lewis, committed attorney 
misconduct by, among other things, converting client funds, neglecting 
clients’ cases, and engaging in a pattern of dishonesty. For this 
misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be disbarred. 
The 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 Disciplinary Complaint.” 
Respondent’s 2009 admission to this state’s bar subjects her to this Court’s 
disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. 
Procedural Background and Facts  
The Commission filed a six-count disciplinary complaint on June 12, 
2018, and we appointed a hearing officer. After unsuccessful attempts to 
serve Respondent by certified mail at her business address and two other 
addresses associated with Respondent, constructive service was made 
upon the Clerk as Respondent’s agent pursuant to Admission and 
Discipline Rule 23(23.1)(c). Respondent has not appeared or responded in 
these proceedings. Accordingly, the Commission filed a “Motion for 
Judgment on the Complaint,” and the hearing officer took the facts alleged 
in the disciplinary 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 “Client 1” in bankruptcy 
proceedings. Client 1’s case eventually was dismissed due to failure to 
make plan payments. Respondent had withdrawn the necessary funds 
from Client 1’s account, but rather than forwarding those funds to the 
bankruptcy trustee, Respondent instead used the funds for her own 
personal benefit or for the benefit of other clients. Respondent failed to 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-102 | December 28, 2018 
Page 3 of 6 
provide a court-ordered accounting. Respondent issued a personal check 
to the court to cover the funds she had converted from Client 1, but that 
check was rejected for insufficient funds. When Respondent failed to 
appear for a subsequent hearing, the U.S. Marshal’s office seized 
Respondent and brought her to court. Respondent provided conflicting 
statements to the court regarding the whereabouts of Client 1’s funds and 
falsely told the court that she could not reach Client 1 and that Client 1 
had failed to provide her with the trustee payments. 
Count 2. Respondent represented “Client 2” in bankruptcy 
proceedings. Client 2’s home had been sold at a tax sale for non-payment 
of real estate taxes. The bankruptcy was filed during the redemption 
period and the plan required Client 2 to make payments to the trustee to 
cover the cost of real estate taxes. Respondent inaccurately told Client 2 
that she did not need to begin making those payments until ordered to do 
so by the court, which resulted in Client 2’s plan payments being in 
default from the outset of the case. Respondent also failed to prepare a 
new wage assignment after Client 2 notified her that Client 2 had changed 
jobs. Client 2’s case soon was pending dismissal due to the default on plan 
payments. Respondent filed a motion to modify the plan but failed to 
appear at a hearing scheduled on the motion. The court rescheduled the 
hearing, but Respondent then withdrew the modification motion and the 
bankruptcy case was dismissed. Respondent later falsely told Client 2 the 
case was still pending and demanded an additional attorney fee. By the 
time Client 2 learned of the dismissal, the redemption period had expired 
and Client 2 no longer could save her house through the bankruptcy plan. 
Count 3. Respondent was hired by “Client 3” to prepare a bankruptcy 
case. Client 3 paid Respondent $3,000 and provided the financial 
information necessary to file the case. Respondent took no action on 
behalf of Client 3. Thereafter, Client 3 sought to contact Respondent for 
updates on the status of her case but was unable to reach Respondent. 
Client 3 learned that Respondent was no longer using her listed business 
address. Client 3 then sought a refund of her fee but was unable to locate 
Respondent. Client 3 has filed a small claims action against Respondent 
seeking to recover the unearned fee. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-102 | December 28, 2018 
Page 4 of 6 
Count 4. In her October 2017 attorney registration, Respondent falsely 
certified to the Clerk that she maintained an IOLTA account at “Bank” 
and listed a fictitious account. One month later, in November 2017, 
Respondent falsely informed the bankruptcy court that she had an IOLTA 
account into which she deposited client funds. 
Count 5. Respondent failed to respond to requests for information by 
the Commission during its investigations of grievances filed against 
Respondent.1   
Count 6. Respondent was hired by “Client 6” to represent him in a 
bankruptcy case. Client 6 paid Respondent $325 up front and later paid 
additional funds at Respondent’s request. Thereafter, Client 6 had 
difficulty contacting Respondent, and Respondent failed to appear at 
several scheduled appointments. On December 14, 2017, Respondent 
texted Client 6 and falsely stated his bankruptcy petition had been filed. 
After several other failed communications, Respondent provided Client 6 
with a bankruptcy petition that misspelled Client 6’s name and included 
other incorrect information. Client 6 then attempted to fire Respondent 
but was unable to contact her. 
Respondent has been under an order of emergency interim suspension 
in this matter since March 22, 2018. Matter of Lewis, 93 N.E.3d 743 (Ind. 
2018). Respondent also currently is suspended in two other cases for 
failing to cooperate with the Commission’s investigations and is 
administratively suspended for noncompliance with continuing legal 
education requirements. 
                                                 
1 Unlike the other counts alleged in the disciplinary complaint, Count 5 did not include 
citation to any rule allegedly violated by the charged conduct, and the hearing officer’s entry 
of judgment on the complaint likewise does not include any finding of a rule violation in 
connection with Count 5. We note that noncooperation with an investigation by the 
Commission is encompassed within Professional Conduct Rule 8.1(b), which in relevant part 
proscribes “knowingly fail[ing] to respond to a lawful demand for information from an 
admissions or disciplinary authority . . . .” Nonetheless, we find no rule violation with respect 
to Count 5 because none was charged.   
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-102 | December 28, 2018 
Page 5 of 6 
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: 
1.1: Failing to provide competent representation.  
1.3: Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. 
1.4(a)(3): Failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter.  
1.4(a)(4): Failing to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable 
requests for information. 
1.5(a): Making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an 
unreasonable fee. 
1.16(d): Failing to refund an unearned fee upon termination of 
representation. 
3.3(a)(1):  Knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal. 
3.4(c):  Knowingly disobeying a court order.  
8.4(b):  Committing a criminal act (conversion) 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. 
 
We additionally conclude that Respondent violated her obligation under 
Admission and Discipline Rule 2 by submitting a false IOLTA certification 
to the Clerk. We turn now to the question of an appropriate sanction. 
“In exercising our disciplinary authority, we have an obligation to 
protect the public and the profession from the tactics of unscrupulous 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-DI-102 | December 28, 2018 
Page 6 of 6 
lawyers.” Matter of Johnson, 53 N.E.3d 1177, 1180 (Ind. 2016). Respondent 
stole clients’ funds, neglected clients’ cases, and disregarded court orders, 
all serious transgressions. See Matter of Pierce, 80 N.E.3d 888, 890 (Ind. 
2017). Respondent’s misconduct also involved pervasive dishonesty 
toward clients and the bankruptcy court, and Respondent falsified her 
attorney registration with the Clerk of this Court. Further, Respondent has 
evaded numerous attempts by clients to contact her, and she has failed to 
accept service or participate in these disciplinary proceedings. The 
seriousness and scope of Respondent’s misconduct, and her failure to 
participate in these proceedings, persuade us that Respondent should be 
disbarred. 
Conclusion 
Respondent already is under orders of administrative, noncooperation, 
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, and the hearing officer appointed in this 
case is discharged. 
All Justices concur. 
N O  A P P EA RA N CE FO R  T H E  RE SP O N D EN T  
 
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 
Seth T. Pruden, Staff Attorney