In re Lewis, 122818 INSC, 18S-DI-102

Docket Nº:18S-DI-102
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:In the Matter of Kirmille D. Lewis, Respondent.
Attorney:ATTORNEYS FOR INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION G. Michael Witte, Executive Director Seth T. Pruden, Staff Attorney
Case Date:December 28, 2018
Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

In the Matter of Kirmille D. Lewis, Respondent.

No. 18S-DI-102

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 28, 2018

Attorney Discipline Action Hearing Officer Lloyd H. Milliken, Jr.


ATTORNEYS FOR INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION G. Michael Witte, Executive Director Seth T. Pruden, Staff Attorney



We find that Respondent, Kirmille Lewis, committed attorney misconduct by, among other things, converting client funds, neglecting clients' cases, and engaging in a pattern of dishonesty. For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be disbarred.

The matter is before the Court on the report of the hearing officer appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission's "Verified Disciplinary Complaint." Respondent's 2009 admission to this state's bar subjects her to this Court's disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.

Procedural Background and Facts

The Commission filed a six-count disciplinary complaint on June 12, 2018, and we appointed a hearing officer. After unsuccessful attempts to serve Respondent by certified mail at her business address and two other addresses associated with Respondent, constructive service was made upon the Clerk as Respondent's agent pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(23.1)(c). Respondent has not appeared or responded in these proceedings. Accordingly, the Commission filed a "Motion for Judgment on the Complaint," and the hearing officer took the facts alleged in the disciplinary complaint as true.

No petition for review of the hearing officer's report has been filed. When neither party challenges the findings of the hearing officer, "we accept and adopt those findings but reserve final judgment as to misconduct and sanction." Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 1257, 1258 (Ind. 2000).

Count 1.

Respondent represented "Client 1" in bankruptcy proceedings. Client 1's case eventually was dismissed due to failure to make plan payments. Respondent had withdrawn the necessary funds from Client 1's account, but rather than forwarding those funds to the bankruptcy trustee, Respondent instead used the funds for her own personal benefit or for the benefit of other clients. Respondent...

To continue reading