Levinson, Matter of, 49S00-8908-DI-646

CourtSupreme Court of Indiana
Citation604 N.E.2d 599
Docket NumberNo. 49S00-8908-DI-646,49S00-8908-DI-646
PartiesIn the Matter of Robert C. LEVINSON.
Decision Date09 December 1992

Page 599

604 N.E.2d 599
In the Matter of Robert C. LEVINSON.
No. 49S00-8908-DI-646.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Dec. 9, 1992.

Page 600

James H. Voyles, Indianapolis, for respondent.

David B. Hughes, Indianapolis, for Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Com'n.


The Respondent, Robert C. Levinson, was charged in a complaint for disciplinary action with violations of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), and 1.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law. An evidentiary hearing occurred, and the Hearing Officer submitted his findings of fact and conclusions of law. He concluded that Respondent violated Rule 1.2(a), Rule 1.3, and Rule 1.4(a), which require, respectively, that an attorney abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and consult with the client about the means by which the objectives are to be pursued, that an attorney act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, and that an attorney keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the client's case and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Respondent has submitted a Petition for Review of the Hearing Officer's report.

Our review of this disciplinary case is de novo in nature. We review not only the Hearing Officer's report but the entire record before us. The Hearing Officer's findings may receive emphasis given his opportunity to directly observe the witnesses, but this Court makes the ultimate determination of the facts and conclusions. Matter of Smith (1991), Ind., 579 N.E.2d 450; In re Gemmer (1991), Ind., 566 N.E.2d 528.

We find the facts to be as follows. On April 25, 1988, Stanley Scott retained Respondent for the purpose of filing a petition for post-conviction relief on behalf of Stanley's incarcerated brother, Anthony Scott. Respondent drafted a written agreement with Stanley Scott in which it was stated that Respondent received $500.00 from Stanley "as retainer for post-conviction petition on two cases in Marion County Criminal Court." In the agreement, Respondent stated that the total fee would be $1,700.00. The agreement further stated that Respondent "will review transcripts of the proceedings in the two cases and report his professional opinion ... If attorney believes after review of transcripts that further action will be fruitless, he will advise clients and charge a total of $1,000.00 if transcripts are $400.00 or less ... If over $400.00 client agrees to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Geisler, Matter of, 75S00-9105-DI-374
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 7, 1993
    ...direct observation of witnesses, but this court remains the ultimate factfinder and arbiter of misconduct and sanction. Matter of Levinson (1992), Ind. 604 N.E.2d 599; Matter of Smith (1991), Ind., 579 N.E.2d 450; Matter of Gemmer (1991), Ind., 566 N.E.2d 528. Respondent's challenges to the......
  • Atanga, Matter of
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 30, 1994
    ...This Court is not bound by the recommended facts and conclusions. Our review is de novo on the record. In re Levinson (1992), Ind., 604 N.E.2d 599; In re Smith (1991), Ind., 579 N.E.2d 450. Respondent's challenges to the tendered findings of fact will be considered in this process of Upon c......
  • Robak, Matter of, 30S00-9203-DI-139
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 3, 1995
    ...will be given appropriate emphasis, but this Court is the final arbiter of disputed facts and ultimate conclusions. In re Levinson (1992), Ind., 604 N.E.2d 599; In re Gemmer (1991), Ind., 566 N.E.2d 528. To support a finding of misconduct, this Court must be satisfied that such is based on ......
  • Moore, Matter of, 79S00-9406-DI-576
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 15, 1996
    ...is the final arbiter of disputed facts and ultimately determines all factual and legal conclusions. In re Robak, supra.; In re Levinson, 604 N.E.2d 599 (Ind.1992); In re Gemmer, 566 N.E.2d 528 Applying the above-noted standard of review, this Court now finds that on December 17, 1993, the r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT