Court Opinion

ID: 9505421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:04:37.736974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:27.545481
License: Public Domain

BOEHM, Justice,
concurring in result.
I continue to adhere to the view that the respondent did nothing that this Court should find sanctionable. Specifically, I believe the statements attributed to the respondent are protected by both the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and by Article I, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution. Even if these statements were not constitutionally protected, for the reasons given in my original dissent, I would not find them to violate the Rules of Professional Responsibility. Therefore, I would grant rehearing on all aspects of the Court's initial opinion. However, there is no majority to grant rehearing on the sanction unless a public reprimand remains in place. For that reason, I coneur in the result to impose a public reprimand rather than leave in place the thirty-day suspension already imposed.
The respondent's petition to rehear this matter arrives in an extremely unusual procedural posture. Although the full *988court addressed the case initially, only four Justices remain to consider the petition to reconsider. If a majority votes to grant rehearing, the effect is to recall the former opinion, and Wilking' case would be before us "as if it had never been decided." 2 Arch N. Bobbitt, Indiana Appellate Practice and Procedure, § 62:11, at 625 (1972); see also Bally v. Guilford Township Sch. Corp., 234 Ind. 273, 275, 126 N.E.2d 13, 15 (1955); Booher v. Goldsborough, 44 Ind. 490, 496 (1873); Terrance L. Smith and Anthony DeBonis Jr., Appellate Handbook for Indiana Lawyers, § 19:8, at 302 (1987). If rehearing is granted on a single issue-in this case the proper sanction-the original opinion stands as to all other issues, and only the sanction is vacated. Griffin v. State, 763 N.E.2d 450 (Ind.2002).
The votes of the Chief Justice and Justice Dickson are to grant rehearing as to the sanction only, and to impose a public reprimand. Justice Sullivan and I would vote for no sanction at all. But if neither of us joins in the result reached by Justice Dickson and the Chief Justice, we have no majority to grant rehearing as to any aspect of the original opinion and Wilkins' thirty-day suspension stands. Lewis Carroll would love that result: half the Court believes no sanction is appropriate, and half would impose a small sanction, so the result is a major penalty. Only those who love the law could explain that to their children. To free parents everywhere from that burden, I concur in the result of granting rehearing as to the sanction and reducing it to a public reprimand.