Aspinall, Matter of, 583S170

• Decision Date: 22 November 1983
• Docket Number: No. 583S170,583S170
• Citation: 455 N.E.2d 942
• Parties: In the Matter of Alan J. ASPINALL.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 942

455 N.E.2d 942

In the Matter of Alan J. ASPINALL.

No. 583S170.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 22, 1983.

James S. Kowalik, Hopper & Opperman, Indianapolis, for respondent.

Sheldon A. Breskow, Executive Secretary, William C. Hussmann, Jr., Staff Atty., Indianapolis, for Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Com'n.

DISCIPLINARY ACTION

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding was commenced by the filing of a complaint under this cause charging the Respondent with entering into a business transaction with a client having differing interests, accepting employment when the exercise of his professional judgement was affected by his own interests, violating a Disciplinary Rule, engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, failing to maintain complete records of a client's funds, and failing to render proper accounting for those funds when requested. By reason of such alleged misconduct, Respondent is specifically charged with violating Disciplinary Rules 5-104(A), 5-101(A), 1-102(A)(1) and (4), and 9-102(B).

Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 11(d), the parties to this proceeding have tendered to this Court a conditional agreement under which they seek approval of the imposition of a public reprimand for such alleged misconduct. The Respondent, additionally, has presented to this Court the requisite affidavit pursuant to Section 17 of the above noted rule.

It is specifically agreed by the parties that the Respondent, a duly licensed attorney in the State of Indiana, was engaged in a professional capacity by Ronald L. Banta (Banta), a podiatrist, to perform certain legal services related to an incorporated medical practice, of which Banta owned one-third of the outstanding shares. Respondent performed services for the corporation and was compensated by the corporation.

In May, 1980, Respondent entered into a business known as "Big Boy's Toys, Inc." with Banta and one Charles L. Brown (Brown). Brown was to use his contacts in the automobile business to buy and sell luxury used cars and Banta was to provide a line of credit for the business. Respondent was to provide legal services in organizing the business and handling automobile title transactions, provide office and telephone facilities, keep the books for the business, and generally assist in operating the business. Prior to the initiation of the business relationship, Respondent failed to fully and completely disclose the nature of the differing interests which ...