Car Trouble

The Indiana Supreme Court has suspended an attorney for two years without automatic reinstatement.

 The charges

In Count 1, Respondent represented the defendant in a criminal case. At the first jury trial setting, Respondent arrived forty minutes late, claiming he had a flat tire. After jury selection and a lunch break, Respondent reported he might have been exposed to COVID over the previous weekend, and the trial court declared a mistrial. Respondent thereafter failed to appear for a pretrial conference; and at the second jury trial setting, Respondent failed to appear for the second day of trial. The trial court declared a second mistrial and ordered Respondent’s appearance to be withdrawn.

In Count 2, Respondent was late to one hearing in a CHINS case and failed to appear at another hearing, claiming he was out of gas in another town. The court ordered Respondent’s appearance to be withdrawn.

Respondent is currently suspended from the practice of law for noncooperation with the Commission’s investigations of grievances against him. He also is administratively suspended for noncompliance with his continuing legal education requirements.

The court

In the short time since he was admitted to practice law in Indiana, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of misconduct and a dereliction of an attorney’s most fundamental duties. Respondent caused two separate mistrials in one case, and in both cases his repeated failures to appear for scheduled court proceedings squandered judicial resources and caused inconvenience for his clients and others. Respondent has failed to participate in these proceedings and has failed to cooperate with the Commission’s investigations. Respondent also has breached his duties to maintain accurate contact information with the Roll of Attorneys and to accept service of process, which has necessitated the use of constructive service in this and other matters.

Sanction

Respondent is already under multiple orders of suspension as noted above. For Respondent’s professional misconduct in this case, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than two years, without automatic reinstatement, effective from the date of this opinion. At the conclusion of the minimum period of suspension, Respondent may petition this Court for reinstatement to the practice of law in this state, provided Respondent pays the costs of this proceeding, fulfills the duties of a suspended attorney, and satisfies the requirements for reinstatement of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18).

(Mike Frisch)