Syfert, Matter of
| Decision Date | 13 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 53S00-8806-DI-576,53S00-8806-DI-576 |
| Citation | 550 N.E.2d 1306 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Alan SYFERT. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
No appearance entered for respondent.
Sheldon A. Breskow, David F. Hurley, Staff Atty., Indianapolis, for the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Com'n.
The Respondent in this disciplinary case is charged with violating Rules 4.2 and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law. The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and the Respondent have reached an agreement, pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 11(d), which they now tender for this Court's approval. The Respondent has also submitted his affidavit as required by Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 17(a).
Having examined all matters tendered in this case, we find that the agreement should be approved. In accordance therewith, we find that in June of 1987, Mr. Joe Bryan, (Bryan) retained the Respondent to represent him in the sale of Bryan's home and real estate located in Bloomington, Indiana. In July of 1987, the Respondent and Bryan met with Ms. Marilyn Stone (Stone), a woman who had occupied the house in question with Bryan's permission, and executed a written Offer to Purchase Real Estate. Prior to closing, Ms. Stone gave notice that she would be unable to purchase the house, and she later moved. After Stone's departure from the house, the Respondent contacted Ms. Stone several times demanding that Stone pay Bryan the sum of $1,280 (One Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Dollars) in damages as rent for the months she occupied Bryan's house.
In October of 1987, Stone retained Indiana University School of Law Community Legal Clinic (Clinic) to represent her in her dispute with Bryan. An intern qualified under Admission and Discipline Rule 2.1 to serve under the direction of a supervising attorney was assigned to work with the indigent Ms. Stone.
In the months of October and November, negotiations began between the Clinic and the Respondent. Then, in an attempt to persuade Ms. Stone to settle, the Respondent contacted Ms. Stone twice without the knowledge or consent of the Clinic. During the two conversations, the Respondent spoke disparagingly of the Clinic's advice and threatened the indigent Ms. Stone with the possibility of having to pay substantial damages and costs if she were unsuccessful at trial.
As a result of these communications, Ms. Stone agreed at the close of the Respondent's second communication to settle for a sum in excess of an offer to compromise which the Clinic had previously conveyed to the Respondent.
In mitigation the parties have agreed that, at the time of the Respondent's initial demands, he suggested that Ms. Stone...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Steele
...to pressure an opposing party to settle on less favorable terms "undermines the representative adversarial system." Matter of Syfert , 550 N.E.2d 1306, 1307 (Ind. 1990). This is precisely what Respondent did here; and it makes little difference (nor should it) that he did so while represent......
-
Order for Mandate of Funds v. Milligan
... ... Once fully briefed, this Court took the matter under advisement ... Discussion ... The issues to be decided in a mandate proceeding are whether the funds ordered paid are ... ...
-
Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 94-132
...contact opposing parties who are represented by counsel, they undermine the representative adversarial system. In re Syfert, 550 N.E.2d 1306, 1307 (Ind.1990) (per curiam). We refuse to enforce an agreement in favor of an attorney who admittedly engaged in conduct which we consider to be une......
-
In re Baker, 49S00-0008-DI-459.
...opposing party. Past violations of Prof.Cond.R. 4.2 or its predecessor have resulted in public admonishment. See, e.g., Matter of Syfert, 550 N.E.2d 1306 (Ind.1990) (communicating with represented opposing party in legal dispute without other lawyer's knowledge and consent, and circumventin......
-
Authorized by Law: Ex Parte Contact With Government Officials Represented by Counsel
...by an opposing lawyer into giving away his case. Op. 384 Ill. App. 3d at 788, 324 Ill.Dec. at 277, 895 N.E.2d at 992"); In re Syfert, 550 N. E. 2d 1306, 1307 (Ind.1990) (When attorneys, in violation of Rule 4.2, contact opposing parties who are represented by counsel, they undermine the rep......