Indiana’s (Not Adelaide’s) Lament

A sanction imposed by the Indiana Supreme Court

We find that Respondent, Robert T. Miller, engaged in attorney misconduct by signing family case managers’ (FCMs) names to Child in Need of Services (CHINS) petitions without their knowledge or consent. For this misconduct, we agree with the parties that Respondent should be suspended for 120 days with automatic reinstatement.

Specifics

At all relevant times, Respondent was a staff attorney for the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) and was assigned to the office shared by Newton and Benton Counties. As a staff attorney, Respondent was responsible for preparing and filing CHINS petitions, which must be verified. In thirty-eight CHINS petitions filed between April 2022 and April 2023, Respondent signed the names of FCMs without their knowledge or permission. DCS fired Respondent upon learning of his misconduct.

Importantly, the parties stipulate in their conditional agreement that there is no evidence any of the facts alleged in the CHINS petitions were falsified other than the signatures. Respondent drafted the petitions based on facts contained in documents prepared by the FCMs; the FCMs attended the initial hearings on the CHINS petitions with Respondent; and the FCMs testified regarding the information contained in the CHINS petitions.

Motive

We have repeatedly lamented the fundamental breach in trust posed by attorneys who falsely sign or notarize legal documents. “The accuracy of documents and instruments utilized by a tribunal in a proceeding is of the utmost importance to the administration of justice.” Matter of Darling, 685 N.E.2d 1066, 1068 (Ind. 1997). “[F]raudulent alteration of such documents by an officer of the court is therefore severe misconduct.” Id.

That such misconduct often has been motivated by considerations of expediency rather than selfishness does little to lessen the impact of the deceit upon courts, parties, and public confidence in the legal system.

Sanction

When weighing the seriousness and scope of the misconduct against the stipulated mitigating factors, which include among other things Respondent’s lack of prior discipline and his lengthy career of public service, we agree with the parties that a 120-day suspension with automatic reinstatement is appropriate.

You need to be my age to understand the title to this post. (Mike Frisch)