State ex rel. Disciplinary Com'n of Supreme Court of Ind. v. Crofts

• Decision Date: 04 December 1986
• Docket Number: No. 82S00-8605-DI-424,82S00-8605-DI-424
• Citation: 500 N.E.2d 753
• Parties: . Dennis N. CROFTS, Respondent. Supreme Court of Indiana
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 753

500 N.E.2d 753

STATE of Indiana Ex Rel. DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF the SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA v. Dennis N. CROFTS, Respondent.

No. 82S00-8605-DI-424.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 4, 1986.

No appearance entered, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM

This proceeding is now before the Court pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 24 which implements this Court's exclusive, original jurisdiction, as set forth in the Constitution of the State of Indiana, Article 7, Section 4, in matters concerning the unauthorized practice of law. Under the procedure set forth in this rule, the Disciplinary Commission of the Court, by a verified petition, prays that this Court permanently enjoin the Respondent, Dennis N. Crofts, from the further unauthorized practice of law. In response to the petition, Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss, Answer, Statement of Affirmative Defenses, Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support of Summary Judgment.

Admission and Discipline Rule 24 authorizes the filing of a verified return and no other pleadings. The matters filed by the Respondent in this cause, which appear to be an attempt to incorporate federal trial rules into this proceeding, in good part do not comply with the above noted rule. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment are denied.

Respondent's "Answer" and "Statement of Affirmative Defenses" do appear to be in the nature of a return. They will be so treated. Upon examination of the record now before this Court, we are of the further opinion that the factual issues are sufficiently presented and that a Commissioner need not be appointed.

This court has not provided a comprehensive definition of what conduct constitutes the practice of law in that each factual situation must be judged on its own specific circumstance. Miller v. Vance (1984), Ind., 463 N.E.2d 250. However, this Court has long recognized that the "performing of services in a court of justice, in any matter depending therein throughout its various stages, and in conformity to the adopted rules of procedure" constitutes the practice of law. Fink v. Peden (1938), 214 Ind. 584, 17 N.E.2d 95, citing Eley v. Miller (1893), 7 Ind.App. 529, 535, 34 N.E. 836.

This original action to enjoin the unauthorized practice of law concerns the participation of the Respondent in two parallel bankruptcy proceedings and related litigation in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division. Under cause number 81-01759-EV-RA, Joseph S. Schnee and Marilyn Schnee filed as debtors; Fred G. Miller was Trustee and Frank R. Hahn became the Successor Trustee. Under Cause Number 81-81-01760 EV RA, Economy Liquors filed as the debtor; Joseph S. Schnee, and Marilyn Schnee the Directors and Principle Officers of this Corporation; Kenneth Schnee is listed as the Vice President. In the adversary proceedings which have grown out of these two bankruptcy proceedings, various defendants have been named. In all of these proceedings, however, Respondent is not a party, trustee, or scheduled creditor.

This Court now further finds that on or about June 6, 1985, the debtors and trustee filed, under Adversary Proceeding No. 85- 0088, a complaint to avoid a tax sale against various defendants. The Plaintiffs were represented by counsel; the controversy centered on the purported tax sale by Vanderburgh County of certain property which allegedly was part of the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. An answer and counterclaim were filed and a response to the counterclaim was filed. The matter was finally set for oral argument. On March 7, 1986, the Respondent, Dennis N. Crofts, who is not an attorney admitted to the practice of law in this state, filed a pleading entitled "Appearance and Complaint for Injunction and Declaratory Relief." The Respondent asked the Court to stay the proceedings until a particular defendant, who was represented by counsel, could adequately defend the complaint.

On or about February 19, 1986, among other pleadings, Joseph and Marilyn Schnee filed multiple-court complaints under adversary proceeding numbers 86-0040, 86-0043, 86-0049 and 86-0052 against the bonding company for their attorney, and alleged attorneys of record in certain unspecified litigation. The parties prayed for damages in excess of $1,000,000 dollars in each cause. The causes were filed pro se, but notarized before the Respondent. Attached to the complaints filed under Adversary Proceeding Numbers 86-0049 and 86-0052 were certifications signed by the Respondent noting that the documents were copies of originals maintained in his possession. Counter pleadings were filed and on or about March 14, 1986, Respondent filed jointly under all four causes a pleading entitled "Appearance and Motion to Retain Reference and Reference to Bankruptcy Judge" and a "Brief in Support of Motion to Retain Reference and Reference to Bankruptcy Judge". In this pleading, the Respondent denotes the stated preference of plaintiffs (supposed pro se litigants) and in paragraphs five and eight of his brief asserts argument as "counsel". This pleading is signed "Dennis N. Crofts, pro se ".

From on or about February 18, 1986, through March 3, 1986, Joseph and ...