Smith, Matter of, 875S192
| Decision Date | 07 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 875S192,875S192 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Brian W. SMITH. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Alan F. Hizer, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Craig Stevens, Staff Atty., Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is a disciplinary proceeding before the Court on the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and recommendations. Neither the respondent nor the Disciplinary Commission has petitioned this Court for review as permitted by Admission and Discipline Rule 23, § 15.
The respondent in this cause is charged with violating his oath as an attorney and the Code of Professional Responsibility for Attorneys at Law by contravening Disciplinary Rules 1--102(A)(5) and (6); 5--105(A), (B), and (C); and 7--101(A)(1), (2), and (3). The alleged course of improper conduct arises from respondent's representation of the complainants in a collection matter.
At the outset of this case, it is necessary that a procedural question raised by the respondent be resolved. Respondent has moved that this proceeding be dismissed in that the Disciplinary Commission, during the investigative stage of proceedings, did not follow Admission and Discipline Rule 23, as then in effect. 1 The respondent contends that under § 10(b) of Admission and Discipline Rule 23, the Executive Secretary had to docket the matter for investigation within forty-five days after notice of the complaint to the respondent or dismiss the claim.
§ 10(b) had application in this case only after the matter had been classified as potential misconduct. Admission and Discipline Rule 23, § 10(a) provides that the Executive Secretary, upon receipt of a claim of misconduct, make an appropriate preliminary investigation. Once this is completed, the matter is classified as potential misconduct, and the respondent given notice of the complaint and classification, the forty-five day period and limitation imposed under § 10(b) commences.
The exhibits introduced during the hearing of this matter demonstrate that on November 13, 1974 the respondent was notified that a grievance was filed against him by the complainants, which at that time was classified as a 'non-misconduct' matter. Thereafter, on June 11, 1975, the respondent was notified that the matter had been reclassified and on June 27, 1975, the claim was docketed. In this case the forty-five day period began on June 11, 1975 and the docketing on June 27, 1975 came within the time requirements established by Admission and Discipline Rule 23, § 10(b).
Upon the filing of the complaint in this cause, a Hearing Officer was appointed, the cause was heard and argued, and the Hearing Officer has filed his findings of fact and recommendations. Upon consideration of these findings and after review of the record of proceedings in this matter, this Court finds that the respondent, a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Indiana, was employed by Mr. and Mrs. Floyd Pittman, on October 19, 1973, to undertake the collection of an unliquidated claim owed to the Pittmans. A contingent fee contract in the amount of 30% was signed on that date. Thereafter, the respondent effected an agreement whereby the Pittmans were to be paid forth dollars each month, less the respondent's fees, until the full amount of $726.00 had been paid.
Sometime in the month of June 1974, Respondent was employed by Ovid A. Larr to collect all the outstanding unpaid accounts, judgments, and civil actions pending of Larr Elevator and Feed Company. There were approximately twenty such accounts, one of which was against Floyd Pittman, the respondent's client in the prior collection action.
On July 29, 1974, the respondent's secretary transcribed and, with the respondent's facsimile signature, signed a letter to Mr. Floyd Pittman stating that the respondent had been employed by Larr Elevator Company to collect a delinquent account with interest in the amount of $240.51 and that if satisfactory arrangements were not made to pay this account, it would be necessary for the respondent to proceed against Mr. Pittman in court. The next day Mrs. Pittman contacted the respondent by telephone concerning his letter of July 29, 1974; this was the first time the respondent had actual knowledge of the multiple employment situation. During the course of this conversation, the respondent informed Mrs. Pittman of the ramifications of the judgment pending against her and Mr. Pittman and further advised Mrs Pittman that he could not represent the Larr Elevator and Feed Company in any formal proceeding against them with regard to this account. At this point Mrs. Pittman and the respondent entered into an oral agreement whereby the respondent would take the proceeds the respondent was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holleman v. Cotton
...J., dissenting). Indiana's rules of professional conduct embodied that duty well before Holleman's trial. See, e.g., In re Smith, 266 Ind. 6, 351 N.E.2d 1, 3 (1976); In re Farr, 264 Ind. 153, 340 N.E.2d 777, 784-85 (1976); Carlson v. Carlson, 148 Ind.App. 409, 266 N.E.2d 807, 809 4. My coll......
-
Craven, Matter of
...fact are only the initial starting point for review by this Court. See, In re Wood (1976), 265 Ind. 616, 358 N.E.2d 128; In re Smith (1976), 266 Ind. 6, 351 N.E.2d 1; In re Bradburn (1966), 248 Ind. 29, 221 N.E.2d 885; In re Holovachka (1964), 245 Ind. 483, 198 N.E.2d 381. It is through thi......
-
Murray, Matter of
...findings of fact are only the initial starting point for review by this Court. See, In re Wood (1976), Ind., 358 N.E.2d 128; In re Smith (1976), Ind., 351 N.E.2d 1; In re Bradburn (1966), 248 Ind. 29, 221 N.E.2d 885; In re Holovachka (1964), 245 Ind. 483, 198 N.E.2d 381. It is through this ......
-
Smith, Matter of
...of the fact that the Respondent had engaged in misconduct on two prior occasions and had been sanctioned accordingly. In re Smith (1976), 266 Ind. 6, 351 N.E.2d 1 (public reprimand), In re Smith (1986), 487 N.E.2d 138 (thirty day suspension). In light of his prior acts of misconduct, Respon......