Perrello, In re, No. 872S113
| Docket Nº | No. 872S113 |
| Citation | 260 Ind. 26, 291 N.E.2d 698 |
| Case Date | January 31, 1973 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 698
[260 Ind. 28]
Page 699
HUNTER, Justice.We have before us a very rare case of deciding whether the Respondent should be held in contempt of the Supreme Court.
Page 700
The case arises from disciplinary proceedings brought against Respondent. Charges were made against Respondent and a hearing on a Motion for Suspension Pending Prosecution was held on November 14, 1972. The Disciplinary Commission presented several witness, all of whom indicated that the Respondent had attempted to solicit business from them in the hallways outside the Marion County Municipal Courts in apparent violation of DR2--103 and 2--104 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On November 16, 1972, the hearing officer recommended to this Court that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law pending final determination of the disciplinary action. Pursuant to § 15(b) of A.D. 23, the Supreme Court entered an Order of Suspension on November 20, 1972, in which the Respondent, Biagio J. Perrello, was suspended from the practice of law pending final determination, and he was ordered to cease and desist from any and all further acts and activity as an attorney of law of this State until further notice. On November 21, 1972, the above order of this Court was personally served upon the Respondent.Subsequent to the suspension, the Disciplinary Commission obtained information that Respondent had been practicing law in defiance of the order of this Court. On December 12, 1972, the Commission sought from this Court an order to show cause why Respondent should not be held in contempt of the order of this Court, that a hearing be held in this matter and Respondent be held in contempt of the Order with such relief as would be necessary and proper.
A hearing was held in this matter on January 3, 1973 and evidence was taken. The evidence indicates that on December [260 Ind. 29] 5, 1972, the Respondent, in his office, entered into a contract of employment with Bobby Minor, in which the Respondent was to represent Mr. Minor as his attorney as to criminal charges pending against him in Marion County Municipal Court. Mr. Minor signed a contract which called for a total fee of five hundred dollars and paid the Respondent fifty dollars of the fee at that time. This is clearly holding oneself out as an attorney and engaging in the practice of law in violation of the Order of Suspension issued by this Court.
Respondent was found to be in indirect criminal contempt of the Supreme Court of Indiana. He was sentenced to thirty days on the Indiana State Farm.
IC 1971, 33--2--1--4 (Ind.Ann.Stat. § 4--110 (1968 Repl.)) gives the Supreme Court of Indiana 'full power . . . to punish by fine and imprisonment for contempt of its authority and process . . .'. In addition, the power to punish for contempt is inherent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacobsen v. State, No. 3-1175A247
...criminal contempt concerns a disturbance or show of disrespect in open court. IC 1971, 34-4-7-1 (Burns Code Ed.); In re Perrello (1973), 260 Ind. 26, 291 N.E.2d 698; McIntire v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 142, 223 N.E.2d 347. It may also deal with matters personally within the trial judge's kno......
-
Skolnick v. State, No. PS
...in open court pleadings containing contumacious statements. Kerr v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 147, 141 N.E. 308. In In re Perrello (1973), 260 Ind. 26, 291 N.E.2d 698, direct contempt was deemed to be "any act which manifests a disrespect for and defiance Page 1163 of a court." 260 Ind. at 29,......
-
Chapman v. Chapman, No. 85A02-8604-CV-147
...on the record, 'it is not sufficient to merely deny any intention to defy the order.' " 419 N.E.2d at 113 quoting In re Perrello (1973), 260 Ind. 26, 30, 291 N.E.2d 698, III. Contempt for Failure to pay Visitation Expenses Jerry alleges the court erred in finding him in contempt for failing......
-
May, Matter of, No. 1--975A163
...it was not brought in the name of the State of Indiana. This same argument was disposed of by our Supreme Court in In re Perrello (1973), 260 Ind. 26, 30--31, 291 N.E.2d 698, 'The Respondent claims the action is defective because it has not been brought in the name of the State of Indiana. ......
-
Jacobsen v. State, No. 3-1175A247
...criminal contempt concerns a disturbance or show of disrespect in open court. IC 1971, 34-4-7-1 (Burns Code Ed.); In re Perrello (1973), 260 Ind. 26, 291 N.E.2d 698; McIntire v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 142, 223 N.E.2d 347. It may also deal with matters personally within the trial judge's kno......
-
Skolnick v. State, No. PS
...in open court pleadings containing contumacious statements. Kerr v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 147, 141 N.E. 308. In In re Perrello (1973), 260 Ind. 26, 291 N.E.2d 698, direct contempt was deemed to be "any act which manifests a disrespect for and defiance Page 1163 of a court." 260 Ind. at 29,......
-
Chapman v. Chapman, No. 85A02-8604-CV-147
...on the record, 'it is not sufficient to merely deny any intention to defy the order.' " 419 N.E.2d at 113 quoting In re Perrello (1973), 260 Ind. 26, 30, 291 N.E.2d 698, III. Contempt for Failure to pay Visitation Expenses Jerry alleges the court erred in finding him in contempt for failing......
-
May, Matter of, No. 1--975A163
...it was not brought in the name of the State of Indiana. This same argument was disposed of by our Supreme Court in In re Perrello (1973), 260 Ind. 26, 30--31, 291 N.E.2d 698, 'The Respondent claims the action is defective because it has not been brought in the name of the State of Indiana. ......