Alvarado v. Nagy, 48A02-0403-CV-273.

• Citation: 819 N.E.2d 520
• Decision Date: 21 December 2004
• Docket Number: No. 48A02-0403-CV-273.,48A02-0403-CV-273.
• Parties: John ALVARADO, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Sarah NAGY, Appellee-Defendant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

819 N.E.2d 520

John ALVARADO, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Sarah NAGY, Appellee-Defendant.

No. 48A02-0403-CV-273.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

December 21, 2004.

John Alvarado, Pendleton, IN, Appellant pro se.

Kevin P. McGoff, Mark E. Kamish, Kiefer & McGoff, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

John Alvarado, pro se, appeals the dismissal of the complaint he filed against Sarah Nagy, the attorney who represented him in an unsuccessful attempt to secure a modification of a sentence he was serving. The complaint was dismissed, upon Nagy's motion, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We reverse. The facts are that at all times relevant to this appeal, Alvarado was incarcerated at the Correctional Industrial Facility in Pendleton, Indiana. In May 2002, Alvarado hired Nagy to represent him in an effort to modify his sentence. According to the contract, Alvarado was to pay a flat fee of $2500, which was based on Nagy's billable rate of $250 per hour. Alvarado paid the fee and Nagy contacted the Marion County Prosecutor's Office (the MCPO) and commenced legal efforts to secure a modification of Alvarado's sentence. Those efforts proved unsuccessful, culminating in the following letter to Nagy from Jeffrey Gill, a deputy prosecutor at the MCPO:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 20, 2002. I have reviewed the information which you enclosed with your letter and I have reviewed the file. While I am impressed and encouraged by the progress that Mr. Alvarado has made during the course of his incarceration, it is the position of the Marion County Prosecutor's office that the original sentence was the appropriate sentence in this matter. Therefore, I must regretfully inform you that the State would not consent to any modifications of the defendant's sentence in this case.

Appellee's Appendix at 13. Nagy notified Alvarado by letter of the MCPO's decision and informed him that there remained the option of post-conviction relief to accomplish the same end. She advised him that the fee for such an action would be $20,000-$25,000, but that she would "begin work in this matter for half of the flat fee up front and the remaining paid in monthly installments." Id. at 12. Alvarado responded with the following letter:

I am writing you in reference to obtaining the entire case file pursuant to Rule 1.16(a) and Indiana Code § 33-1-21-9.

Specifically, I am requesting a copy of the correspondence that you sent to the State of Indiana on September 20, 2002.

Also, at this time, I feel that I was mislead [sic] into the agreement and that the flat fee that was closed [sic] with that agreement was unreasobale [sic] pursuant to the provisions on Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5.

Wherefore, at your earliest convenience I would appreciate that you forward me $2000.00 in unearned fees, to satisfy this unfair representation. I request that you please note also, that in your correspondence dated December 17, 2001, you informed me that the cost of your representation based on a jury trial would have been $15,000. Thereafter, you informed me in your correspondence dated October 31, 2002 the fees would be $20,000 to $25,000.

You are requested to respond within ten (10) days or further action will be taken in this matter.

Id. at 14.

Nagy refused Alvarado's request to refund a portion of the fee he had paid. On December 11, 2003, Alvarado filed a complaint in the Madison Circuit Court seeking compensatory and punitive damages. A more detailed summary of that complaint will be set out later in this opinion. On February 25, 2004, Nagy filed Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss, alleging that the Madison Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of Alvarado's complaint, which the complaint described as "matters relating to the practice of law." Id. at 25. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on March 3, 2004, and this appeal ensued.

This court has observed that a court either has jurisdiction or it does not. Kondamuri v. Kondamuri, 799 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. For this reason, the question of jurisdiction is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Id. There are three types of jurisdiction, only one of which — jurisdiction of the subject matter — is implicated here. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court's power to hear and decide a class of cases. Id. Generally, the question of subject matter jurisdiction is resolved by determining whether the claim involved falls within the general scope of authority conferred on the court by statute or the Indiana Constitution. The question of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Id.

The appropriate standard of reviewing rulings on motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction depends upon what occurred in the trial court. Hubbard v. Columbia Women's Hosp. of Indianapolis, 807 N.E.2d 45 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). Specifically, the standard depends upon (1) whether the trial court resolved disputed facts in making its decision, and (2) if it did resolve disputed facts, whether it conducted an evidentiary hearing or ruled on a paper record. Id. Where, as here, the pertinent facts are not in dispute, the question is purely one of law. Id.

Nagy sought dismissal on grounds that the action Alvarado initiated in filing his complaint was essentially a matter of attorney discipline and "it is the exclusive province of [the Indiana Supreme Court] to regulate professional activity". Appellee's Appendix at 25. The trial court granted Nagy's motion without explaining its rationale. In such cases, we must presume the court granted the motion to dismiss on all the grounds set forth in the motion. Lawson v. First Union Mortg. Co., 786 N.E.2d 279 (Ind.Ct.App.2003).

It is beyond debate that the Indiana Supreme Court is indeed the exclusive arbiter of matters involving attorney discipline in this state. Such exclusive jurisdiction is conferred by the Indiana Constitution. See Ind. Const., art. 7, section 4; In re Keller, 792 N.E.2d 865 (Ind.2003). Thus, we fully agree that the Madison Circuit Court has no jurisdiction over attorney discipline cases. We conclude, however, that the rule does not apply here because the instant case does not fit in that category of cases.

The pivotal question before us is whether Alvarado's action can fairly be categorized as a case involving attorney discipline. We begin by considering the nature of the class of cases over which the supreme court has exclusive jurisdiction. Article 7, section 4 of the Indiana Constitution describes that class of cases as including: "[A]dmission to the practice of law; discipline or disbarment of those admitted; [and] the unauthorized practice of law, discipline, removal, and retirement of justices and judges [.]" Although the foregoing provision does not define the meaning of the phrase "attorney discipline", (which we will hereafter use to describe the category of cases identified in article 7, section 4) the list aids in understanding the parameters of the category.

The listed items are consistent with the traditional meaning of the term "discipline," which is, "a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2004), available at http:// www.m-w.com/cgi-bin /dictionary?book=Dictionary & va=discipline. We note that in exercising its jurisdiction in this area, the supreme court has promulgated rules by which the practice of law is governed in this state. See Ind. Rules of Professional Conduct. In its role as exclusive arbiter over matters of attorney discipline, the supreme court is responsible for enforcing those rules. In Levy v. State, 799 N.E.2d 71 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003), trans. denied, this court recently discussed the nature of the supreme court's duties in performing this function. For instance, we noted the Indiana Constitution confers upon the court "exclusive jurisdiction relating to the disbarment or discipline of attorneys." Id. at 72 (quoting In re Mann, 270 Ind. 358, 360, 385 N.E.2d 1139, 1141 (1979)). We described the court's duties in this regard as including, "preserv[ing] the integrity of the legal profession and safeguard[ing] the public from those who do not meet acceptable standards of professional behavior", Levy v. State, 799 N.E.2d at 72 (quoting In re Mann, 270 Ind. at 360, 385 N.E.2d at 1141), and "regulat[ing]...