Court Opinion

ID: 9505449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:04:57.969003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:29.800360
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Resolving this particular case by imposing a three-year suspension bears a resemblance to the story of the blind men and the elephant.
On the face of it, today's charge largely involves using a client's settlement proceeds for something else and then finally paying the client back with a cashier's check. |
Information available in the public domain, however, makes it apparent that today's charge is but a small piece of a lengthy story of massive financial misconduct involving hundreds of thousands of dollars.: Respondent has apparently robbed Peter to pay Paul over a period of several years in order to feed a serious addiction to gambling.
*1157As a result, there have been multiple criminal indictments, arrests, and civil complaints for damages filed in several counties. Seq, eg., D. Hosick, "Lawyer Facing Charges for Mishandling Funds Arrested Again," Evansville Courier & Press, Oct. 25, 2001; B. Rohrig, "New Charges Filed Against Local Lawyer," Evansville Courier & Press, May 29, 2002; State v. Loosemore, No. 82C01-0110-CF-916 (13 counts of forgery, theft, and credit card fraud).
It appears that none of these criminal or civil cases has come to rest, and probably will not do so until Respondent, jailed since last October, returns from a gambling addiction facility. Id. Until these multiple charges are actually resolved somehow, we cannot take them as true. At the very least, their existence militates against disposing of this disciplinary case on the basis of a single count of misconduct.
Allan Loosemore spent a good many years as a productive member of the profession, and the best outcome for him in this proceeding would have been resignation. He has not resigned, however, and indeed has indicated he expects to be disbarred. Rohrig, supra. Likewise, this Court's hearing officer recommended he be disbarred.
In light of the Respondent's publicly-declared expectation of disbarment, the hearing officer's recommendation of disbarment, Loosemore's failure to oppose the recommendation of disbarment, and the state of the public record about the probable seale of the actual misconduct, I think the Court makes a mistake when it says, "No, disbarment is too harsh, three years is about right."