Bell v. Conner, 668S93
| Decision Date | 08 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 668S93,668S93 |
| Citation | 251 Ind. 409,241 N.E.2d 360 |
| Parties | Donald G. BELL, Vance M. Waggoner, Alan T. Nolan, Robert Y. Keegan, Frank E. Tolbert, As Members of the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana, Petitioners, v. John CONNER, Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Donald G. Bell, Vincennes, Vance M. Waggoner, Rushville, Alan T. Nolan, Indianapolis, Robert Y. Keegan, Ft. Wayne, Frank E. Tolbert, Logansport, Members of the Disciplinary Commission.
Palmer K. Ward, Indianapolis, for respondent.
Come now the parties by counsel, and the court being duly advised in the premises, now files its Per Curiam opinion, being in words and figures as follows, to wit:
This is an original disciplinary action instituted by the filing of an information for the revocation or suspension of admission to practice law by members of the disciplinary commission, appointed by the Supreme Court of Indiana, pursuant to Rule 3--21 of said court.
The information charges the respondent with specific acts alleged to constitute violations of his professional obligations and asks that his license to practice law be revoked. Thereafter, the respondent filed his answer, admitting the specifications of borrowing money from his client, which has not been repaid and for which confessed unpaid judgment is outstanding. His answer denied all other specifications.
A commissioner was appointed to hear and report the evidence and make findings of fact. The respondent and his attorney, pursuant to the directions of this court, were given fifteen (15) days from the filing of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation of the commissioner, to file with this court exceptions. No exceptions to the commissioner's report were filed. The facts are, therefore, settled.
The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Indiana, May 31, 1923.
In the Findings of Fact by the commissioner, the first specification is as follows:
1. That the said John Conner while a practicing attorney in this state has violated his obligation to his client in this, to wit: that he has not accounted for the funds which he has received from his client for the purpose of satisfying certain obligations of his client's son.
The commissioner found a preponderance of evidence to sustain this charge.
Specification 2 of the information is as follows:
2. That the said John Conner while a practicing attorney in this state has violated his obligation to his client in this, to wit: that he perpetrated a fraud upon his client by assuring his client that he would take certain actions on behalf of his client's son which actions John Conner never undertook.
The commissioner found that this charge is, in substance, based on the same evidence as contained in specification 1, and is likewise sustained by a preponderance of the evidence.
Specification 3 of the information is as follows:
3. That the said John Conner, while a practicing attorney in this state, has been guilty of dishonest acts toward his client in this, to wit: that he borrowed money from his client, which money has not been repaid and an unsatisfied judgment is outstanding thereon.
The commissioner found that respondent, by his answer, admitted he borrowed the money from his client which is not repaid and the respondent confessed judgment and has not made restitution of the moneys to his client. There is no evidence, however, that such acts were made dishonestly. The Cannon of Ethics of the American Bar Association ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kizer v. Davis
...evidence the proper standard of conduct for the legal profession. In re Kuzman (1975) Ind., 335 N.E.2d 210, 212; Bell et al. v. Conner (1968) 251 Ind. 409, 241 N.E.2d 360; Tokash v. State (1953) 232 Ind. 668, 115 N.E.2d 745. Specifically, the Code operates as the rule of law in disciplinary......
- Schuh v. State