Court Opinion

ID: 9529026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:46:36.039207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:36.150067
License: Public Domain

PUBLISHED - ORDER - APPROVING STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND - CONDITIONAL AGREEMENT FOR DISCIPLINE
Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11), the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a "Statement of Cireumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline" stipulating agreed facts and proposed discipline as summarized below:
Stipulated Facts: Respondent represented a client in a post-conviction relief proceeding. At a hearing on March 16, 2005, DNA evidence was introduced in support of the client's assertion that he was entitled to a new trial on the charge of rape for which he was incarcerated. After the hearing, the client and his family repeatedly tried to contact Respondent about expediting a ruling, but Respondent failed to communicate with the client or his family. Respondent, did, however, send two email inquiries to the magistrate who conducted the hearing. The client's petition was finally granted on March 8, 2007, and he was released from prison the following month. It is not known whether consultation between Respondent and the client would have resulted in an earlier decision and release. Respondent has no prior discipline and has cooperated with the Commission.
Violations: The parties agree that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.4(a)(2), which required a lawyer to consult reasonably with a client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished.
Discipline: The parties agree the appropriate sanction is a public reprimand. The Court, having considered the submission of the parties, now APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline. For Respondent's professional misconduct, the Court imposes a public reprimand. The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.
DICKSON, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.
SULLIVAN, J., dissents and would reject the conditional agreement, believing the sanction to be insufficient.
SHEPARD, C.J., dissents with separate opinion.