In re Levy, 49S00-9406-DI-582.
| Decision Date | 20 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S00-9406-DI-582.,49S00-9406-DI-582. |
| Citation | 726 N.E.2d 1257 |
| Parties | In the Matter of William LEVY. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
726 N.E.2d 1257
In the Matter of William LEVYNo. 49S00-9406-DI-582.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
April 20, 2000.
Ronald E. Elberger, Indianapolis, for the respondent.
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
PER CURIAM.
Attorney William Levy, not wanting his client to discover that he missed a hearing on the client's behalf, redacted language referring to his absence from the copy of the court's final order, which he then provided to his client. For his purposeful concealment of information from his client, we find that a period of suspension is warranted.
This matter was brought before a hearing officer, appointed pursuant to Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17), who found misconduct as charged. Our jurisdiction in this case arises from the respondent's admission to the bar of this state on September 21, 1966. When, as here, neither the Commission nor the respondent challenge the findings of the hearing officer, we accept and adopt those findings but reserve final judgment as to misconduct and sanction. Matter of Gallo, 619 N.E.2d 921 (Ind.1993).
The Commission's charges relate to the respondent's representation of a defendant insurance carrier and an insured in a small claims case. We now find that after entering an appearance on the defendants' behalf in the Vigo County Court, the respondent filed a motion for continuance, which the court granted on September 14, 1993. The respondent, failing to mark the new trial date on his calendar, missed the bench trial held on December 7, 1993. After conducting a hearing on the damages sought by the plaintiff, the court entered a default judgment of $953.80 against the respondent's clients. The introductory sentences of the order granting default judgment referred to the respondent's failure to attend the trial. After receiving a copy of the court's order, the respondent then redacted those introductory sentences from it and forwarded the copy containing the redactions to the insurer that he represented. That client subsequently discovered the modification of the order in April 1994, after the plaintiff filed a case against the insurer with the Indiana Department of Insurance.
The respondent's willful concealment of the fact that he missed the bench trial violates Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), which provides that it is "professional misconduct for a lawyer to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Earhart
...of the hearing officer, “we accept and adopt those findings but reserve final judgment as to misconduct and sanction.” Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 1257, 1258 (Ind.2000). Regardless of the label or actual nature of an attorney's fee, the attorney must refund any part of it that is unearned. S......
-
In re Brewer, Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-299
...of the hearing officer, "we accept and adopt those findings but reserve final judgment as to misconduct and sanction." Matter of Levy , 726 N.E.2d 1257, 1258 (Ind. 2000).Counts 1 through 11. Respondent was hired by eleven separate clients to represent them in various criminal and family law......
-
In re Ouellette, 02S00–1502–DI–107.
...of the hearing officer, “we accept and adopt those findings but reserve final judgment as to misconduct and sanction.” Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 1257, 1258 (Ind.2000).In January 2005, “Clients” retained Respondent to represent them in their Chapter 13 bankruptcy. In December 2010, the bank......
-
In re Davis
...Conduct Rule 8.1(b), we "reserve final judgment as to misconduct" even in the absence of a petition for review. See Matter of Levy , 726 N.E.2d 1257, 1258 (Ind. 2000). We further observe that the Commission bears the burden of clearly and convincingly establishing that Respondent "knowingly......