Fletcher, Matter of, No. 98S00-9406-DI-563
| Docket Nº | No. 98S00-9406-DI-563 |
| Citation | 655 N.E.2d 58 |
| Case Date | September 01, 1995 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 58
Page 59
Ronald E. Elberger, Bose McKinney & Evans, Indianapolis, for respondent.
Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary, David E. Hughes, Staff Attorney, Indianapolis, for Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Com'n.
PER CURIAM.
This attorney disciplinary action comes to us on Respondent James A. Fletcher's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent is admitted to the state bar of Illinois, but has never been licensed as a member of this state's bar. The Disciplinary Commission formally commenced this action on June 21, 1994 by filing a verified complaint alleging that Respondent knowingly made false statements of material fact to an Indiana trial court judge while admitted, pursuant to Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 3, pro hac vice as defendant's counsel of record in a civil action in Whitley Circuit Court. 1
Specifically, the Commission alleges that Respondent told Presiding Judge James R. Heuer, in open court, that he had not met face-to-face with his clients the prior evening, when in fact he had. The trial concluded on December 2, 1992, with a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. Respondent remained counsel of record for the defendants through initiation of an appeal in the Indiana Court of Appeals. He filed a petition to withdraw his appearance on July 15, 1994, which was granted by the Court of Appeals on August 9, 1994. The Commission alleges violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law arising from the statement Respondent made to Judge Heuer.
Respondent now moves this Court for dismissal, arguing that it has no disciplinary jurisdiction over an attorney not admitted to this state's bar. Alternatively, Respondent contends that any disciplinary jurisdiction this Court may have had in this case somehow evaporated once he withdrew his pro hac vice appearance. We disagree.
Pursuant to Article 7, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution, this Court possesses original jurisdiction
in admission to the practice of law; discipline or disbarment of those admitted; the unauthorized practice of law; discipline, removal, and retirement of justices and judges; supervision of the exercise of jurisdiction by the other courts of the State; and issuance of writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction.
This Court has held that, pursuant to Section 4, it is the exclusive province of this Court to regulate professional legal activity. In re The Matter of Public Law No. 154-1990 (H.E.A. 1044), (1990), Ind., 561 N.E.2d 791, 792, citing In re Mann (1979), 270 Ind. 358, 385 N.E.2d 1139. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction in matters involving the admission and discipline of attorneys. In re Kesler (1979), 272 Ind. 161, 163, 397 N.E.2d 574, 575; cert. denied, (1980), 449 U.S. 829, 101 S.Ct. 96, 66 L.Ed.2d 34. Members of this state's bar are admitted by this Court pursuant to such jurisdiction. Admis.Disc.R. 1; Admis.Disc.R. 3.
Pursuant to its authority to regulate the profession, this Court has from time to time promulgated rules concerning admission to the practice of law and discipline of those so practicing. In this regard, Admis.Disc.R. 23(1) provides:
This Court has exclusive jurisdiction of all cases in which an attorney who is admitted to the bar of this Court or who practices law in this State (hereinafter referred to as
Page 60
"attorney") is charged with misconduct ... The term "attorney" as used in this rule shall include, in addition to all persons admitted to the bar of this Court, [those] who practice law in this State ...Admission and Discipline Rule 23(1) reflects this Court's exclusive jurisdiction of matters concerning the practice of law in this state, regardless of whether the practitioner is an attorney admitted to this state's bar. Other states recognize similar jurisdiction and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Wills, No. 79S00-9808-CV-458.
...has exclusive jurisdiction in matters involving the admission and discipline of attorneys. IND. CONST. art. VII, ? 4; Matter of Fletcher, 655 N.E.2d 58, 59 (Ind.1995); In re Kesler, 272 Ind. 161, 163, 397 N.E.2d 574, 575 (1979). This Court has original jurisdiction in matters relating to th......
-
Bank of Hawaii v. Kunimoto, No. 20575.
...admitted pro hac vice from practice before the court for three years). Baldwin Hardware Corp., 78 F.3d at 562; see also In re Fletcher, 655 N.E.2d 58, 61 (Ind.1995) (citing Paramount Communications v. QVC Network, 637 A.2d 34, 53 (Del.Super.1994)). See generally MacDraw, Inc. v. The CIT Gro......
-
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Allen, No. 22700
...jurisdictional rule applied in that case is more narrow than the one we are asked to interpret. Respondents next cite Matter of Fletcher, 655 N.E.2d 58 (Ind.1995), wherein the Supreme Court of Indiana issued a per curiam opinion finding that it had jurisdiction over a member of the Illinois......
-
BROWN v. BOWMAN, CAUSE NO.: 1:09-CV-346-TLS
...matters involving admission to the practice of law and discipline of attorneys in Indiana. Ind. Const. art. VII, § 4; Matter of Fletcher, 655 N.E.2d 58, 59 (Ind. 1995) (per curiam); see also Ind. Code § 33-24-1-2(b)(1) ("The supreme court has exclusive jurisdiction to: . . . admit attorneys......
-
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Wills, No. 79S00-9808-CV-458.
...has exclusive jurisdiction in matters involving the admission and discipline of attorneys. IND. CONST. art. VII, ? 4; Matter of Fletcher, 655 N.E.2d 58, 59 (Ind.1995); In re Kesler, 272 Ind. 161, 163, 397 N.E.2d 574, 575 (1979). This Court has original jurisdiction in matters relating to th......
-
Bank of Hawaii v. Kunimoto, No. 20575.
...admitted pro hac vice from practice before the court for three years). Baldwin Hardware Corp., 78 F.3d at 562; see also In re Fletcher, 655 N.E.2d 58, 61 (Ind.1995) (citing Paramount Communications v. QVC Network, 637 A.2d 34, 53 (Del.Super.1994)). See generally MacDraw, Inc. v. The CIT Gro......
-
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Allen, No. 22700
...jurisdictional rule applied in that case is more narrow than the one we are asked to interpret. Respondents next cite Matter of Fletcher, 655 N.E.2d 58 (Ind.1995), wherein the Supreme Court of Indiana issued a per curiam opinion finding that it had jurisdiction over a member of the Illinois......
-
BROWN v. BOWMAN, CAUSE NO.: 1:09-CV-346-TLS
...matters involving admission to the practice of law and discipline of attorneys in Indiana. Ind. Const. art. VII, § 4; Matter of Fletcher, 655 N.E.2d 58, 59 (Ind. 1995) (per curiam); see also Ind. Code § 33-24-1-2(b)(1) ("The supreme court has exclusive jurisdiction to: . . . admit attorneys......