In re Fecher, 012519 INSC, 98S00-1610-DI-552
|Opinion Judge:||LORETTA H. RUSH CHIEF JUSTICE|
|Party Name:||In the Matter of: William B. Fecher, Respondent|
|Case Date:||January 25, 2019|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Indiana|
PUBLISHED ORDER FINDING MISCONDUCT AND IMPOSING DISCIPLINE
LORETTA H. RUSH CHIEF JUSTICE
Upon review of the report of the hearing officer, the Honorable John R. Pera, who was appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission's "Amended Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action," and the briefs of the parties, the Court finds that Respondent engaged in professional misconduct and imposes discipline on Respondent.
Facts: In early 2013 Respondent, who is a partner in a Cincinnati law firm, entered an appearance on behalf of a defendant ("Company") in a breach of contract action filed by "Plaintiff" in Lake County, Indiana ("Lake County Case"). Respondent then failed to timely comply with discovery, resulting in an award of $800 in attorney fees to Plaintiff. Respondent and Company also failed to appear for court-ordered mediation, which led to show cause proceedings and a hearing that Respondent and Company also failed to attend. Respondent and Company were ordered to pay $2, 000 jointly and severally as a contempt sanction. After Plaintiff obtained summary judgment the trial court set the matter for a proceedings supplemental hearing, which Respondent and Company failed to attend. Additional show cause proceedings ensued, with Respondent and Company again failing to attend the hearing.
When the Commission undertook an investigation of this matter, Respondent failed to respond to the Commission's demand for information. This led to show cause proceedings in this Court and, eventually, Respondent's suspension for noncooperation. After Respondent had been suspended for six months, the Commission filed a motion to convert Respondent's noncooperation suspension to an indefinite suspension. As that motion was pending, Respondent finally complied, and the Court issued an order on August 11, 2015, terminating Respondent's noncooperation suspension.
Respondent's substantial experience in the practice of law is a fact in aggravation. Mitigating factors in this case include Respondent's remorse...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP