Relphorde, Matter of, 45S00-9402-DI-173
Decision Date | 29 December 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 45S00-9402-DI-173,45S00-9402-DI-173 |
Citation | 644 N.E.2d 874 |
Parties | In the Matter of Kevin B. RELPHORDE. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Kevin B. Relphorde, pro se.
Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary, Robert C. Shook, Staff Atty., Indianapolis, for The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Com'n.
The Respondent in this case, Kevin B. Relphorde, has been charged by the Disciplinary Commission of this Court in a two-count complaint with various violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law. The matter is now before this Court on a "Conditional Agreement for Discipline" tendered by the parties pursuant to Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11)(g). Additionally, Respondent has filed an affidavit as set forth in Admis.Disc.R. 23(17)(a). This Court accepts the agreement tendered by the parties, finds professional misconduct, and approves the requested discipline as set forth more fully in the following opinion.
Under Count I, Respondent has been charged with failing to disclose a material fact to a tribunal; failing to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Specifically, under Count I, Respondent has been charged with violating Ind.Professional Conduct Rules 3.3(a), 3.4(d), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d). The alleged professional misconduct involves Respondent's activities in opposing an adverse judgment against him.
Based on the conditional agreement, this Court now finds that on February 19, 1992, the Jasper Superior Court entered judgment against the Respondent for the sum of $1,200.00 in favor of the grievant. On April 13, 1992, the grievant filed a petition for Proceeding Supplemental and on June 2, 1992, served a set of interrogatories on Respondent by certified mail. The interrogatories were received by Respondent on June 4, 1992, and he filed his answers with the Jasper Superior Court on July 10, 1992. Respondent's answers failed to provide, as requested, information about his law practice, including earnings; compensation for public defender services; bank accounts; and motor vehicle ownership. In most of his answers, Respondent merely noted "N/A."
On August 19, 1992, the grievant filed a motion for a Subpoena Duces Tecum with the court requesting an order for Respondent to produce or have in his possession various documents at a Proceeding Supplemental hearing. The court granted the grievant's motion and held the requested hearing on September 29, 1992. Respondent did not comply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum order. The court required Respondent to answer under oath about the requested information and to fully comply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum within seven (7) days. On October 8, 1992, almost two months later, Respondent filed a copy of his car title and registration with the court. On December 30, 1992, the court ordered that Respondent's car be attached. On February 24, 1993, the grievant received a check in the amount of $1,200.00 from the Jasper Circuit Court in the above-noted case.
In light of the above findings, this Court now concludes that Respondent engaged in a pattern of delay and guile in his effort to frustrate the payment of a lawful obligation. His subterfuge included misstatements in interrogatories, inordinately prolonged responses to discovery motions, and recalcitrance in the face of judicial authority. Respondent's acts unduly impeded the orderly resolution of litigation. Accordingly, this Court now finds that Respondent engaged in professional misconduct and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged under Count I of the complaint filed in this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Steele
...Straw , 68 N.E.3d 1070 (Ind. 2017) (pursuit of frivolous action); Matter of Yudkin , 61 N.E.3d 1169 (Ind. 2016) (same); Matter of Relphorde , 644 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. 1994) (pattern of misconduct in civil case in which attorney was a defendant proceeding pro se).1 We also have found professiona......
-
In re Usher
...cases as litigants. See, e.g., Matter of Richardson, 792 N.E.2d 871 (Ind.2003) (misstatements in interrogatory answers); Matter of Relphorde, 644 N.E.2d 874 (Ind.1994) (same). Respondent cites no case in which an attorney committing otherwise sanctionable misconduct (e.g., providing knowing......
-
In the Matter of Kevin B. Relphorde, 45S00–1001–DI–39.
...(agreed public reprimand for collecting fee for representing defendant after being appointed as pauper counsel); Matter of Relphorde, 644 N.E.2d 874 (Ind.1994) (agreed 60–day suspension with automatic reinstatement for neglect and conduct involving dishonesty); Matter of Relphorde, 760 N.E.......
-
In re Richardson, 49S00-0203-DI-174.
...an attorney untruthfully answered interrogatories, this Court imposed a 60-day suspension pursuant to agreed resolution. Matter of Relphorde, 644 N.E.2d 874 (Ind.1994). Lawyers are specially situated so as to be uniquely able to inflict harm upon others. The respondent abused his position i......