Title: In the Matter of: Divina K. Westerfield
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 49S00-1505-DI-321
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: December 6, 2016

RESPONDENT PRO SE 
Divina K. Westerfield 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary 
Angie Ordway, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 49S00-1505-DI-321 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DIVINA K. WESTERFIELD, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Gary L. Miller 
_________________________________ 
 
 
December 6, 2016 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We find that Respondent, Divina K. Westerfield, committed attorney misconduct by 
improperly soliciting employment, failing to refund unearned fees, and engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law in Florida.  For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent 
should be suspended for at least eighteen months without automatic reinstatement.   
  
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.”  Respondent’s 1984 admission to this state’s bar subjects 
her 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
Dec 06 2016, 9:14 am
 
 
Procedural Background and Facts 
 
The Commission filed a four-count “Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action” against 
Respondent on May 21, 2015.  Following a hearing, the hearing officer filed his report on 
September 28, 2016.  No petition for review of the hearing officer’s report or brief on sanction 
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.  During relevant times, Respondent was admitted to practice law in Indiana.  
However, she was not licensed to practice law in Florida, where the conduct at issue occurred.  
In 2011, Respondent began associating herself with a non-lawyer marketing representative 
named Wayne Tope, who advertised quiet title actions as a strategy for homeowners to gain 
leverage against mortgage holders and/or to obtain “free and clear title” of a house.  On behalf of 
Respondent, Tope signed up several homeowners for legal representation by Respondent.  
Through Tope, those homeowners executed flat fee contracts for legal representation and paid 
the entire fee up front by providing Tope with a series of post-dated monthly installment checks 
payable to Respondent, which Respondent deposited into an IOLTA account that she alone 
controlled.    
 
For several months, Respondent was the only attorney associated with her law firm, 
which was located in Indianapolis.  In February 2012, Respondent registered her firm as a 
limited liability company with the Florida Secretary of State, and thereafter Respondent entered 
into a series of successive partnership agreements with various attorneys licensed in Florida, 
under which Respondent would retain 90% of profits from fees billed to Florida clients and the 
partner would retain 10% of profits from those fees.1  None of those partnership agreements 
complied with the dictates of Florida law governing the operation of an interstate law firm.  See 
Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1978).  Respondent also hired a suspended Florida 
                                                 
1 In one of these agreements, this profit split was made applicable to both Florida and Indiana clients.  
However, during relevant times the firm had no Indiana clients.   
 
 
attorney to work as a paralegal.  Each of these successive partners left the firm in short order 
after having performed little or no work.     
 
In November 2012, Respondent notified her clients she was closing the Florida office of 
her firm and that, for the clients who had paid a flat fee, she would pay another attorney to 
perform the work.  However, about two months later, that attorney decided to discontinue work 
on the cases referred to him by Respondent. 
 
Counts 2 through 4.  Each of these counts addresses substantially similar facts involving 
three different clients.  In each case, the client (who did not have a prior relationship with 
Respondent or Tope) met Tope through a seminar or similar event.  With Tope’s facilitation, 
each client signed a flat fee representation agreement with Respondent’s firm and provided Tope 
a series of post-dated installment checks.  Thereafter, Respondent’s firm did little or no work for 
the clients and never pursued a quiet title action or loan reduction as promised.  In each case, the 
client eventually sought a refund of unearned fees.  In two cases, Respondent issued no refund, 
and in the third case she made only a partial refund. 
 
The Commission charged Respondent with violating various Florida Rules of 
Professional Conduct, for which Respondent is subject to discipline by this Court pursuant to 
Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.5.2  The hearing officer concluded that Respondent violated 
the rules as charged and recommended that Respondent be suspended for at least eighteen 
months without automatic reinstatement. 
 
Discussion 
 
We concur in the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclude that Respondent violated 
these Florida Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct: 
                                                 
2 Rule 8.5(a) provides in relevant part that a “lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to 
the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs.”  As 
applicable here, Rule 8.5(b) provides that the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be “the 
rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer’s conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the 
conduct is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to the conduct.”   
 
 
 
4-1.5(a): Charging and collecting a fee generated by employment obtained through 
prohibited solicitation. 
 
4-1.16(d): Failing to refund an unearned fee. 
 
4-5.5(a): Engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. 
 
4-5.5(b)(1): Establishing an office for the practice of law in Florida despite not being 
licensed to practice in Florida. 
 
4-7.18(a)(1): Improperly soliciting, either directly or through an agent, employment from 
a person with whom the lawyer has no prior relationship when a significant motive is 
the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. 
 
 
Turning to the issue of appropriate sanction, we first observe that Respondent has a 
lengthy disciplinary history.  Respondent received a private administrative admonition in 1996 
and a public reprimand in 2004.  See Matter of Westerfield, 802 N.E.2d 926 (Ind. 2004).  Later 
in 2004, Respondent was suspended for failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, and 
in 2005 Respondent’s suspension was converted to an indefinite suspension without automatic 
reinstatement due to her continued noncooperation.  Matter of Westerfield, 828 N.E.2d 1287 
(Ind. 2005).  We granted Respondent’s petition for reinstatement in 2009 after Respondent 
finally supplied the Commission with a response to the grievance being investigated.  See Matter 
of Westerfield, 911 N.E.2d 570 (Ind. 2009).   
 
 
We also note several other aggravating factors found by the hearing officer.  During her 
testimony in this matter Respondent was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with 
Tope and attempted to distance herself from his actions despite ample evidence Tope was 
soliciting and signing up clients for legal representation at her behest.  Further, in addition to the 
flat fees Respondent charged her clients, Respondent’s representation agreements also provided 
that the client would owe Respondent a 50% contingency fee of any reduction in mortgage 
principal, to be secured with a lien against the property.  Finally, Respondent has not 
acknowledged any wrongdoing and described these disciplinary proceedings in her testimony as 
a “witch hunt.”      
 
 
 
 
 
Given the seriousness of the misconduct and the substantial facts in aggravation, we 
agree with the hearing officer’s recommendation and conclude that Respondent should be 
suspended for at least eighteen months, after which she may be reinstated only after proving her 
remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law. 
 
Conclusion 
 
For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the 
practice of law in this state for a period of at least eighteen months, without automatic 
reinstatement, effective January 3, 2017.  Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended 
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, except David, J., who dissents regarding the sanction, believing that more 
severe discipline is warranted.