In re Lehman
3 N.E.3d 536, 2014 Ind. LEXIS 151, 2014 WL 688490 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's sustained pattern of professional misconduct, including incompetence, neglect of client matters, breach of confidentiality, mishandling of client funds, and disregard for court orders, warrants a significant suspension from the practice of law, even in the absence of a prior disciplinary history.
Facts:
- In 2007, Respondent, an attorney, was found in contempt of court for failing to appear at scheduled events for a criminal client.
- From 2007 through 2013, Respondent repeatedly failed to appear at numerous hearings for various clients, resulting in contempt findings and occasionally jail time.
- In 2009, while moving his office, Respondent discarded multiple client files containing confidential information, such as Social Security numbers and financial records, into a public trash bin.
- In 2010, Respondent filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for a client who wished to continue operating his business, which is not permitted under Chapter 7, after a previous Chapter 13 filing was dismissed.
- Respondent failed to list several of the bankruptcy client's pending legal claims on the bankruptcy schedules and failed to inform the trustee that the client was still operating his business.
- An investigation of Respondent's trust account revealed that he commingled personal and client funds, used the account for personal and business expenses like a laptop and office rent, and wrote checks from the account that were rejected for insufficient funds.
Procedural Posture:
- The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a 'Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action' against the Respondent.
- The Indiana Supreme Court appointed a hearing officer to take evidence regarding the complaint.
- The hearing officer conducted proceedings and subsequently filed a report with the Court, detailing findings of fact.
- Neither the Disciplinary Commission nor the Respondent filed a petition for review to challenge the hearing officer's report.
- The matter came before the Indiana Supreme Court for a final determination on the findings of misconduct and the imposition of an appropriate sanction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's multi-year pattern of conduct, including failing to appear in court, improperly disposing of confidential client files, providing incompetent representation in bankruptcy proceedings, and commingling client and personal funds, constitute professional misconduct warranting a lengthy suspension from the practice of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the attorney's pattern of conduct constitutes professional misconduct warranting a lengthy suspension. The court adopted the hearing officer's findings, which established a wide range of violations over several years. Respondent violated rules requiring competent representation (Rule 1.1), protection of client confidentiality (Rules 1.6(a), 1.9(c)(2)), proper handling of client funds (Rule 1.15(a)), and conduct that is not prejudicial to the administration of justice (Rule 8.4(d)). The court weighed the aggravating factors—including a pattern of misconduct, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, and a contemptuous disregard for professional obligations—more heavily than the mitigating factors of having no prior disciplinary history and some successfully completed cases. The sheer volume and severity of the violations demonstrated an unfitness to practice law, justifying a two-year suspension without automatic reinstatement.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates that a lawyer's disciplinary record is not determined by a single mistake but by the cumulative weight of their professional conduct. It serves as a stark precedent that a consistent, multi-faceted failure to adhere to fundamental ethical obligations—diligence, competence, confidentiality, and financial integrity—will result in severe sanctions. The ruling emphasizes that courts will not tolerate a pattern of behavior that harms clients and undermines the judicial process, and that an attorney's refusal to acknowledge or correct such deficiencies is a significant aggravating factor. This case reinforces the principle that maintaining a law license is contingent upon continuous adherence to the basic tenets of the profession.
