Court Opinion

ID: 9519890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:26:45.271807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:15.462729
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Arterburn, J.
I dissent from the majority opinion in this disciplinary matter and approve the recommendation of the Hearing Officer that as part of the penalty in this case the respondent be required to make restitution to the client of monies he took and failed to return.
In my opinion, the argument that restitution may be obtained in a separate civil action for damages is specious. The line which at times the law has drawn between wrongs of a criminal nature and those of a civil nature is totally artificial and serves a purpose in criminal proceedings in order to more correctly define constitutional rights of a defendant. This disciplinary action is neither criminal nor civil, and to me it appears ridiculous that we have a hearing to determine the wrong done and to determine the punishment to follow the wrong and then say that we do not go into the question of the damage done and whether or not any reparation has been made. If we did not do that in this case, we have not heard the full case as the Hearing Officer should have done. In all cases, even a criminal case, reparation is part of the question when it comes to fixing the penalty. Although this is not a criminal case, I would say it would be absurd in fixing the punishment for us to say that at trial it was irrelevant for the trial judge to inquire whether or not reparation had been made. Sometimes there is no remedy by way of damages when the defendant is destitute except for the concealed property he has taken. The only remedy in such a case is for the court to condition the punishment upon restitution to the injured party.
*314I believe the reasoning and so-called logic used in closing our eyes to the realities of this case is totally artificial. The wrong in this case, if one has occurred, should be completely adjusted as far as possible in one proceeding. The punishment should be conditioned, insofar as possible, upon correcting the injustice. I see no problems in fixing the amount since the whole matter should have been thoroughly investigated and heard with reference to how much was still owed. I would follow the recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the punishment be conditioned upon a restitution to the injured party.
Hunter, J., concurs.
NOTE. — Reported at 330 N.E.2d 322.
Disciplinary Order
The Court having reviewed and approved the findings of fact of the hearing officer hereinbefore appointed and being fully advised, it is now ordered that the respondent, Raymond Ackerman, appear before this Court on the 22nd day of July, 1975 at 1:30 p.m. for public reprimand.
It is further ordered that, prior to said appearance the respondent pay to the Clerk of this Court the costs of these proceedings. Failing herein, the respondent shall be suspended from the practice of law in this state pending the further order of this Court.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court shall cause a copy of this order to be served forthwith upon the respondent and upon his counsel of record, if any, by certified mail with return receipt requested.
Done in the City of Indianapolis, County of Marion, State of Indiana, this 2nd day of July, 1975.
Richard M. Givan, Chief Justice