Court Opinion

ID: 9779799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:46:34.679142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:41.349252
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, C.J.,
dissents as to the discipline with separate opinion,
in which RUCKER, J., joins.
Courts at all levels set the standard and a tone for the legal profession in the course of signaling what they consider important and what they consider trivial. The highest court of a state plays a special role in setting the bar on ethics and professionalism, acting as it does in the full view of the public.
Respondent Barce signed an affidavit under oath declaring that he was not en*734gaged in the practice of law, and tendered it to the Clerk of this Court. The result was that he exempted himself from paying the regular annual registration fees and registering for the regular continuing legal education that Indiana's 17,400 lawyers and judges do each year. The Clerk therefore sent him a card, as the Clerk does to us all, but the card sent to Barce told Barce rather directly that he was an Indiana attorney with an Indiana license, "but may not use that license as the basis for engaging in the practice of law."
Barce nevertheless regularly practiced law. He carried this card in his pocket (according to the evidence) and prosecuted thousands of citizens for the customary list of eriminal and civil violations. He did that over a period of four years until he was exposed in the minutes just before a jury trial was to commence. As our Disciplinary Commission argues, if a defendant had argued he was not guilty of speeding because he had not bothered to read the speed limit posted on the sign, it is doubtful the Respondent would have found that to be a persuasive argument.
The Disciplinary Commission of this Court, probably mindful that lawyers and judges will notice the sanction we give, has asked us to suspend Mr. Barce for this serial violation of his duties as an attorney.
We have in the past treated gross neglect of precisely the same sort demonstrated by Mr. Barce as warranting a substantial suspension. Matter of Baars, 542 N.E.2d 558 (Ind.1989) (lawyer who practiced law for seven years while swearing he was not, suspended for 24 months). That seems pretty stiff in retrospect, but giving this Respondent a mere reprimand tells everyone the Supreme Court thinks this behavior is a pretty minor matter.
The Commission obviously thinks practicing law without a license is important, and so do I. The Court should suspend Barce for thirty days, and his reinstatement should be conditioned on his paying both the back registration fees and reimbursing the costs of convening the jury that had to be sent home when his violation was brought to light.
RUCKER, J., joins.