Cut And Paste

A consent 30-day suspension has been approved by the Indiana Supreme Court

Respondent represented “Adoptive Parents” in adoption proceedings that were anticipated to be uncontested. In January 2021, Respondent filed documents in court to begin the adoption, one of which was an “Agency Consent” form. That form purported to bear the signature of the adoption agency’s director. Respondent notarized the signature and indicated the director had signed the form in Respondent’s presence. Later, a “Prior Written Approval” form was distributed among the parties that also purported to bear the director’s signature, which Respondent again had notarized. In fact, the director had not signed either of these forms; rather, Respondent had cut-and-pasted her signature without her permission from another document.

The court

The parties propose the appropriate discipline is a 30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement. This discipline is within the range imposed in other cases involving similar misconduct. See Matter of Browning, 39 N.E.3d 685 (Ind. 2015). The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, now approves the agreed discipline.

The approval drew a dissent

Rush, C.J., and Goff, J., dissent, believing the proposed discipline to be inadequate under the circumstances. As Chief Justice Dickson wrote in Matter of Robison, 985 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. 2013):

Much of our legal system is predicated on the authenticity and reliability of signatures. For a lawyer to affix a false signature is a deception that gravely undermines public trust, respect, and confidence in the legal profession. Such inexcusable misconduct is not justified or excused by considerations of client convenience, expediency, or lack of personal gain. Affixing a false signature is manifestly dishonest and an absolute ethical transgression. For this offense, I favor a substantial period of suspension.

(Mike Frisch)