Smith, Matter of, No. 875S192

Docket NºNo. 875S192
Citation266 Ind. 6, 351 N.E.2d 1
Case DateJuly 07, 1976

Page 1

351 N.E.2d 1
266 Ind. 6
In the Matter of Brian W. SMITH.
No. 875S192.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
July 7, 1976.

[266 Ind. 7] Alan F. Hizer, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Craig Stevens, Staff Atty., Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 2

conduct arises from respondent's representation of the complainants in a collection matter.

[266 Ind. 8] 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 [266 Ind. 9] 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,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Holleman v. Cotton, No. 00-3791.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 19, 2002
    ...(Stevens, 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 ......
  • Craven, Matter of, No. 278S32
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 30, 1979
    ...the initial starting point for Page 164 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 this com......
  • Murray, Matter of, No. 175S21
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 26, 1977
    ...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 complete exa......
  • Smith, Matter of, No. 28S00-8806-DI-532
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 25, 1992
    ...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......
4 cases
  • Holleman v. Cotton, No. 00-3791.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 19, 2002
    ...(Stevens, 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 ......
  • Craven, Matter of, No. 278S32
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 30, 1979
    ...the initial starting point for Page 164 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 this com......
  • Murray, Matter of, No. 175S21
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 26, 1977
    ...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 complete exa......
  • Smith, Matter of, No. 28S00-8806-DI-532
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 25, 1992
    ...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......

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