Gallo, Matter of, 45S00-9111-DI-931
| Decision Date | 03 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 45S00-9111-DI-931,45S00-9111-DI-931 |
| Citation | 619 N.E.2d 921 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Robert GALLO. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
The Respondent, Robert Gallo, was charged by a one-count complaint for disciplinary action with violating Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law. Pursuant to Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11)(b), this Court appointed a hearing officer who, after hearing, tendered his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations. Although Respondent had actual knowledge of the time, date, and place of hearing, he failed to appear.
Neither the Respondent nor the Disciplinary Commission challenged the tendered report, and these matters are now before this Court for final judgment. Where, as in this case, the hearing officer's findings are unchallenged, this Court accepts the findings with the understanding that the final determination rests with this Court. Matter of Stover-Pock (1992), Ind., 604 N.E.2d 606.
Respondent was admitted to the bar of this state on January 27, 1982 and is therefore subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court. On January 18, 1991, Sherry L. Schroeder ("Schroeder") informed Respondent of her desire to obtain the services of an Indianapolis attorney experienced in adoption matters to assist her in locating information about her biological parents. Schroeder never expressed a desire to retain Respondent. Respondent informed her that he would contact an Indianapolis attorney and act as a liaison between Schroeder and that attorney. He requested $200.00 as retainer for the attorney and stated that he would forward the money accordingly. Respondent later told Schroeder that Marilyn Ann Moores ("Moores") was the attorney.
On January 20, 1991, Schroeder gave Respondent $200.00. He told her he would give the money to Moores, and that he would not charge Schroeder a fee. However, Respondent never gave the money to Moores, and he failed to keep the funds separate from his own.
Thereafter, Schroeder contacted Respondent regularly. He informed her that Moores was working on the matter. In late February, 1991, Respondent told Schroeder that Moores required an additional $200.00 in fees and filing costs, and that Schroeder should forward the money to him. Schroeder refused. She contacted Indiana's State Board of Health and the Marion County probate court, learning that no case had been filed on her behalf. Becoming suspicious, Schroeder contacted Respondent, who reassured her that he would obtain the information she desired.
Schroeder later contacted Moores, who denied any knowledge of Schroeder, the case, or the money. Moores sent Respondent a letter on March 13, 1991, outlining her conversation with Schroeder and requesting a written explanation. Respondent continued to mislead Schroeder and told her that Moores had received the $200.00, but decided not to complete the case. He further told her that he had retrieved the $200.00 from Moores and that he would complete the case. Schroeder asked for return of the $200.00, and Respondent offered to return $150.00. On January...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Levy, 49S00-9406-DI-582.
...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 clai......
-
Moore, Matter of
...risk to the public if the Respondent is allowed to continue in the profession; and factors in mitigation and aggravation. In re Gallo (1993), Ind., 619 N.E.2d 921, In re Cawley, Jr. (1992), Ind., 602 N.E.2d Respondent completely failed to provide legal services to Pfeiffer after accepting a......
-
Radford, Matter of, 49S00-9205-DI-349
...is now before us for final resolution of this case. This Court is the final arbiter of attorney misconduct and sanction. Matter of Gallo, 619 N.E.2d 921 (Ind.1993). Since neither the Commission nor the respondent has petitioned this Court for review of the hearing officer's report, we accep......
-
Gemmer, Matter of
...officer's report, we accept the findings contained therein, but reserve final determination as to misconduct and sanction. In re Gallo, 619 N.E.2d 921 (Ind.1993). The respondent was admitted to this state's bar in 1972. We now find that during relevant periods, he was a member of a V.F.W. P......