In re Love, 02S00–1408–DI–520.
| Decision Date | 23 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 02S00–1408–DI–520.,02S00–1408–DI–520. |
| Citation | 19 N.E.3d 251 (Mem) |
| Parties | In the Matter of Robert E. LOVE, Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11)
, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” stipulating agreed facts and proposed discipline as summarized below:
Stipulated Facts: Count 1. In March 2011, the Commission received a grievance from BJ, who asserted that she and her husband had employed Respondent in 2007 to represent their two sons in a suit to recover damages for injuries they had suffered in a school bus accident and that Respondent had kept money he had collected for her sons. In his response, Respondent said that it was his recollection that he had been discharged by the family before the case was settled. In August 2011, BJ and Respondent entered into a “Settlement Agreement,” under which Respondent paid BJ $15,000 and BJ agreed that her grievance would be withdrawn. Accordingly, BJ wrote a letter to the Commission saying that she was “dropping my grievance” against Respondent.
During its investigation, the Commission filed a petition to show cause why Respondent should not be suspended for failure to respond to a subpoena duces tecum. Respondent then complied with the subpoena, and the case was dismissed as moot on January 13, 2012. (Cause No. 02S00–1111–DI–657.)
Count 2. In connection with another grievance, the Commission filed a petition to show cause why Respondent should not be suspended for failure to respond to a request for information. Respondent eventually complied with the request, and the case was dismissed as moot on November 8, 2013. (Cause No. 02S00–1307–DI–481.)
Aggravating and mitigating facts. The parties cite certain facts in mitigation, including:
(1) Respondent has acknowledged his misconduct, takes full responsibility for it, and is remorseful; (2) Respondent took steps to enlist BJ's cooperation in answering questions related to her grievance, but BJ's noncooperation hampered his ability to respond to her grievance; (3) Respondent's payment to BJ was intended to fully compensate her for a claim of loss that he could not independently verify; and (4) to ensure proper responses to future communications from the Commission, Respondent has provided consent to the Commission to send a copy of all communications relating to Commission business to Respondent's counsel for the next two years.
While the parties cite no facts in aggravation, the Court notes that Respondent received a public reprimand for prior misconduct. See...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Steele
... ... was minimal." (Br ... on Sanction at 2, 4). Similar violations of Rule 8.4(d) have ... resulted in public reprimands. Matter of Love, 19 ... N.E.3d 251, 252 (Ind. 2014); Matter of Dimick, 969 ... N.E.2d 17, 18 (Ind. 2012); Ramirez, 853 N.E.2d at ... 121; Matter of ... ...
-
In re Steele
...harm ... was minimal." (Br. on Sanction at 2, 4). Similar violations of Rule 8.4(d) have resulted in public reprimands. Matter of Love , 19 N.E.3d 251, 252 (Ind. 2014) ; Matter of Dimick , 969 N.E.2d 17, 18 (Ind. 2012) ; Ramirez , 853 N.E.2d at 121 ; Matter of Blackwelder , 615 N.E.2d 106, ......
- Reynolds v. State
-
In re Davis
...and even had we found a Rule 8.1(b) violation, this likely would not have moved the sanction needle very far. See, e.g. , Matter of Love , 19 N.E.3d 251 (Ind. 2014) ; Matter of Layson , 798 N.E.2d 1289 (Ind. 2003). Respondent's misconduct in Case No. 21S-DI-88 is an entirely different story......