Ortiz, Matter of, 49S00-9107-DI-554
| Decision Date | 16 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S00-9107-DI-554,49S00-9107-DI-554 |
| Citation | 604 N.E.2d 602 |
| Parties | In the Matter of A. Luis ORTIZ. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Candace W. Trivedi, Indianapolis, for respondent.
Charles W. Kidd, Disciplinary Comm'n of Indiana Supreme Court, Indianapolis, for Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm'n.
The Respondent in this proceeding, A. Luis Ortiz, has been charged with engaging in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal, engaging in conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice, and violating a disciplinary rule, in violation, respectively, of Rules 3.5(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law. In accordance with the procedure set forth in Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23, a Hearing Officer was appointed, a hearing was conducted, and the Hearing Officer has tendered findings, conclusions and a recommendation to this Court. Neither party has petitioned for review.
In professional disciplinary proceedings in which there is no challenge to the Hearing Officer's tendered report, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations are accepted, subject to this Court's authority to reexamine, de novo, the proceedings below and reach an independent determination. In re Vogler (1992), Ind., 587 N.E.2d 678; In re Huebner (1990), Ind., 561 N.E.2d 492; In re Fox (1989), 547 N.E.2d 850.
Applying the above process, this Court now finds that the Respondent, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in this state and subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court, represented a criminal defendant in the Tippecanoe Superior Court. On January 17, 1991, Respondent's client was convicted of a felony and found not guilty of another offense. On the following day, the Respondent represented this client during the habitual offender phase of the proceedings. During this phase of the case, certified copies of the defendant's criminal record were presented to the jury. During the rebuttal closing argument, the deputy prosecutor (Mr. Bean) referred to an arrest of the defendant, and Respondent objected to the reference as being outside the record. The objection was overruled, and the deputy prosecutor elaborated to the jury on other arrests.
The jury was sent to lunch, and the court conducted a conference on the record, in chambers. The judge was advised by the bailiff that several members of the jury had commented that they did not see all of the exhibits and ruled that the exhibits would be placed on a table in the court room. The jurors would be permitted to file past and review the exhibits. Respondent placed on record a continuing objection at this point.
Shortly thereafter, Respondent stated to the judge, After being admonished by the judge, Respondent added, "... I'm leaving, I will walk out, I will walk out of that Court room, Your Honor, I will walk." At this point, the Respondent left the Judge's chambers, returned to the court room where the following colloquy took place:
The trial judge cited the Respondent for direct criminal contempt, but Respondent still refused to be seated, and a scuffle ensued with the Deputy Sheriff assigned to the Court, as follows:
The Respondent was seated next to his client, and the trial judge ordered the jury returned to the court room. At this point, the following exchange took place:
"MR. ORTIZ: Judge, I'm telling you I'm walking out in front of the jury, I will get up, there will be a scene in front of this jury."
The jury was returned to the court room and the discussion continued as follows:
Respondent did not sit down, but remained with his client during the jury's review of the controversial exhibits and during the instruction to the jury. The jury, upon instruction, was sent to deliberate, and the trial judge turned his attention to the Respondent. The court found the Respondent in direct criminal contempt of the court for the disturbance created by Respondent's actions. He was sent to the Tippecanoe County jail.
Respondent was returned from the jail for the reading of the verdict and agreed to sit with, and represent his client "under protest." Thereafter, the Respondent apologized to the court and appeared for the sentencing hearing of his client.
The above described scenario establishes a course of conduct involving the direct defiance of the court. The Respondent was told to be seated numerous times and, in spite of the urging of every one in the proceeding, Respondent steadfastly refused to be seated. He threatened to "walk," informed the court that he would not represent his client, and encouraged his client to participate in this pattern of recalcitrance by asking this client to "fire" him. The obvious intent of such conduct was to frustrate the orderly process of decision. These actions demonstrate an intent to disrupt a tribunal and, accordingly, violate Prof.Cond.R. 3.5(c). It is equally clear that Resp...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bishop v. Sanders
-
Garringer, Matter of
...Court remains the final factfinder and arbiter of misconduct, and we reserve the right to determine an appropriate sanction. In re Ortiz (1992), Ind., 604 N.E.2d 602, In re Rajan (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1185. The Respondent's objections to the findings of the Hearing Officer will be resolv......
-
LaCava, Matter of, 49S00-8808-DI-709
...aggravating or mitigating factors. These factors are consistent with the traditional analysis employed by this Court. See, In re Ortiz (1992), Ind., 604 N.E.2d 602; In re Reed (1992), Ind., 599 N.E.2d 601; In re Wells (1991), Ind., 572 N.E.2d In our assessment of sanction, we observe that, ......
-
In re Maridon
... IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF JOSEPH MARIDON, JR., BAR NO. 8561 No. 85606Supreme Court of NevadaJune 20, 2023 ... personnel because of such conduct. In re Ortiz, 604 ... N.E.2d 602, 603 (Ind. 1992). In contrast, when intent to ... disrupt the ... ...
-
§8.2 RPC Pertaining to Advocacy
...Coe, 903 S.W.2d 916 (Mo. 1995) (public reprimand). 180. In re Vincenti, 152 N.J. 253, 704 A.2d 927 (1998) (disbarment). 181. In re Ortiz, 604 N.E.2d 602 (Ind. 1992) (60-day 182. In re Dellinger, 461 F.2d 389 (7th Cir. 1972). 183. Id. at 403. Kunstler made it clear in an interview in Playboy......
-
Table of Cases
...n.227 Herbert, In re, 553 N.E.2d 130, (Ind. 1990): 7–58 LaCava, In re, 615 N.E.2d 93 (Ind. 1993): 8–40 n.325; 8–41 n.334 Ortiz, In re, 604 N.E.2d 602 (Ind. 1992): 8–21 n.181 Sholes v. Sholes, 760 N.E.2d 156, (Ind. 2001): 13–8 n.40 Thonert, In re, 733 N.E.2d 932 (Ind. 2000): 10–19 n.115 Thra......
-
Oath of Civility
...calling his client's sentence "totally outrageous," speaking in a loud voice, and throwing a pencil on the ground; and in In re Ortiz, 604 N.E.2d 602 (Ind. 1992), the attorney was held in direct criminal contempt and sent to the Tippecanoe County Jail, and he was subsequently suspended for ......