State ex rel. Disciplinary Com'n of Supreme Court of Indiana v. Owen

• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM; SHEPARD
• Citation: State ex rel. Disciplinary Com'n of Supreme Court of Indiana v. Owen, 486 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. 1986)
• Decision Date: 02 January 1986
• Docket Number: No. 685,685
• Parties: . Richard Lee OWEN, II. S 253. Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 1012

486 N.E.2d 1012

STATE of Indiana ex rel. DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF the SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA v. Richard Lee OWEN, II.

No. 685 S 253.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 2, 1986.

No Appearance for respondent.

Sheldon A. Breskow, Executive Secretary, Indianapolis, for Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Com'n.

PER CURIAM.

The Constitution of the State of Indiana, Article 7, Section 4, Appellate Rule 4(A)(3), and I.C. 33-2-3-1 grant this Court exclusive original jurisdiction in matters concerning the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Indiana. This proceeding is an original action seeking to enjoin the Respondent, Richard Lee Owen, II, from the unauthorized practice of law under the procedure set forth in Ind.R.A.D. 24.

In accordance with the above-noted authority and procedure, the Disciplinary Commission of this Court has filed a verified complaint setting forth certain factual allegations, and the Respondent has filed his verified response to such matters. Upon examination of these pleadings, we are now of the opinion that the factual issues are sufficiently presented and that a commissioner need not be appointed.

Accordingly, this Court now finds that the Respondent, Richard Lee Owen, II, is not an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the State of Indiana. That at all times material to the allegations set forth in the verified complaint, he maintained an office in Porter, Indiana, under the name "Legal Research Agency." During the month of May, 1983, Robert Weess, an inmate in the Jackson, Michigan, Prison contacted the Respondent and sought advice concerning a post-conviction proceeding arising out of a murder conviction. On June 6, 1984, Respondent replied that he would research this case and "determine what issues are available to you, and what the proper motions are for you to file." Respondent asked for an advance payment of $737.50 and advised Mr. Weess that any research "on the issues would be additional at the rate of $10.00 per hour." Shortly thereafter, Weess' wife sent a check for four hundred dollars to Respondent's office as a retainer to begin work on the case. On October 15, 1984, Respondent provided Weess a memorandum addressing the question of "what are the defendant's rights when a plea of guilty is entered." In this memorandum, Respondent sets forth various Michigan statutes and general reference citations, concluding that the "validity of the guilty plea should be considered" and that "it is imperative to give an accurate account of the issues considered and a transcript must be received for review."

As this Court has stated before, the core element of practicing law is the giving of legal advice to a client....