Wood, Matter of, No. 375S71

Docket NºNo. 375S71
Citation358 N.E.2d 128, 265 Ind. 616
Case DateDecember 23, 1976
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 128

358 N.E.2d 128
265 Ind. 616
In the Matter of Jack R. WOOD.
No. 375S71.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Dec. 23, 1976.

[265 Ind. 617]

Page 129

Palmer K. Ward, Indianapolis, for appellant.

David B. Hughes, Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a disciplinary proceeding before this Court on the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Additionally, the Court has before it a 'Petition for Review' filed by the respondent, and a 'Brief in Support of the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact and Conclusions,' filed by the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court.

One question must be resolved before this Court can review this matter as required by Admission and Discipline Rule 23, § 15. The respondent has moved that this cause of action should be dismissed by reason of adverse and damaging publicity prior to the presentation of any evidence to the Hearing Officer. The respondent does not allege, however, and there is no evidence to suggest that such publicity is attributable to the deliberate acts of the Disciplinary Commission or persons involved in this proceeding. Furthermore, there is no showing as to how [265 Ind. 618] such publicity prevented the fair disposition of the issues raised in this cause or denied the respondent his opportunity to meet and contest arguments and matters directed against him. Accordingly, we find his argument without merit and deny the respondent's motion to dismiss.

The respondent in this cause was charged under a two count complaint with violating Disciplinary Rules 1--102(A)(4), (5), and (6); 2--106(A); 5--101(A); 5--104(A); and 7--101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Page 130

for Attorneys at Law and the Oath of Attorneys for members of the Indiana State Bar. These charges emanate from the respondent's representation of two female clients and his alleged attempts to gain sexual favor through such representation.

Upon the filing of the complaint a hearing officer was appointed; this disciplinary proceeding was heard and argued before the Hearing Officer and, as above-noted, the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Officer are now before this Court. After carefully considering such findings and all matters which have been submitted in this cause and after examining the record of proceedings, this Court now finds that the respondent represented a female client and her husband during 1973 and 1974, which included representation in a foreclosure action against them as defendants. During the course of this representation the respondent offered to exchange his legal services for nude photographs of this female client and her daughter. Several photographs of this nature were taken by a male boarder living in the client's home and these were given to the respondent; the respondent also took nude photographs of this client in his law offices during the summer of 1974. Additionally, during February and March, 1974, the respondent had sexual relations with this client.

This Court also finds that, in October 1973, another female client and her husband consulted with the respondent concerning the adoption of their child in exchange for money. After explaining that an adoption could not be handled in [265 Ind. 619] this manner, the respondent informed these parties that one of respondent's other clients would pay from twenty-five to one hundred fifty dollars for nude photographs of this second female client. Initially, this offer was declined. In November 1974, this same female client contacted the respondent concerning a divorce, at which time the respondent renewed his offer of payment for nude photographs and further offered to allow this client twenty-five dollars toward filing costs if she would allow the respondent to take such photographs. The client indicated that she would return at a later date with her decision.

The offer was then reported to the local police. This female client was wired with a recording device and she returned to the respondent's office. The respondent repeated his offer to apply twenty-five dollars toward his fee if this client would allow the taking of nude photographs. Five days later, after voluntarily being wired with the recording device, this female client again went to the respondent's office. During this visit she accepted the respondent's offer and allowed him to photograph her with the top half of her clothing off. The respondent then asked this client to remove her pants.

Additionally, this Court finds that the respondent made advances toward and attempted to have sexual relations with the above-mentioned second female client and that the respondent did represent an individual who owned a nudist camp and edited a magazine containing nude pictures.

In his petition for review, the respondent challenges portions of the Hearing Officer's findings of fact which form a basis for the above stated findings of this Court.

Respondent asserts that there is no evidence to sustain the finding that respondent took nude photographs of the abovementioned first female client in his office during summer of 1974. At page 30 of the transcript the following testimony by this client appears:

'Q Did Mr. Wood ever take any pictures of you?

A Yes, sir.

[265 Ind. 620] Q Were these pictures taken pursuant to the agreement that you had with him and which, I believe, you said was in February of '74?

A Yes, sir.

Q What kind of pictures were these?

A They were pretty bad, sir.

Q When were they taken?

A In his office.

Q When?

A Well, it was hot weather.

Page 131

Q What year?

A Of '74. I would say it would have to be sometime around May or June.'

This individual further testified relative to these pictures as follows:

'Q It was sometime during the summer of '74, in May or June?

A Yes.

Q Where were they taken?

A In his office.

Q Who was present when these pictures were taken?

A Me and Mr. Wood.

Q How were they taken?

A With his camera.

Q Do you remember what kind of camera it was?

A It was a black camera. It was a Polaroid that you slipped back, instamatic.

Q What kind of pictures were they? Were they the same type of pictures that you looked at in Disciplinary Commission Exhibit No. 9?

A 9 is your last exhibit?

Q That last group of pictures.

A Yes, sir.

Q Same type of pictures?

A Yes, sir.'

[265 Ind. 621] This client identified Exhibit 9, which consisted of nude photographs, as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • In re Vogel, No. M2015-00350-SC-BAR-BP
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • February 4, 2016
    ...] care of" client's legal fees as assured, and providing false information to the disciplinary commission and court); Matter of Wood, 265 Ind. 616, 358 N.E.2d 128, 133 (1976) (imposing a suspension of not less than one year against attorney who attempted to exchange legal services for sexua......
  • Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Durham, No. 62290
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 30, 1979
    ...of Professional Responsibility would have occurred. See, e. g., Matter of Dalessandro, 397 A.2d 743, 755-759 (Pa.1979); Matter of Wood, 358 N.E.2d 128, 133 (Ind.1976). We do not mean to say that private sexual conduct by an attorney cannot be violative of the ICPRL, but only that it is not ......
  • Howard, In re, No. 77446
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 19, 1995
    ...A.2d 1198, 1202 (1990); In re Wood, 489 N.E.2d 1189, 1191 (Ind.1986); People v. Gibbons, 685 P.2d 168, 175 (Colo. banc 1984); In re Wood, 265 Ind. 616, 358 N.E.2d 128, 133 Howard responds that the Chief Disciplinary Counsel failed to establish clear and convincing evidence of quid pro quo s......
  • Duncanson v. State, No. 3-377A80
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 17, 1979
    ...consent of either of the parties to a conversation that it be recorded, a Fourth Amendment violation occurs. See Matter of Wood (1976), 265 Ind. 616, 358 N.E.2d 128, 132. Duncanson contends that even if evidence of bias is collateral to the issue of guilt and, therefore, may be excluded as ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • In re Vogel, No. M2015-00350-SC-BAR-BP
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • February 4, 2016
    ...] care of" client's legal fees as assured, and providing false information to the disciplinary commission and court); Matter of Wood, 265 Ind. 616, 358 N.E.2d 128, 133 (1976) (imposing a suspension of not less than one year against attorney who attempted to exchange legal services for sexua......
  • Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Durham, No. 62290
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 30, 1979
    ...of Professional Responsibility would have occurred. See, e. g., Matter of Dalessandro, 397 A.2d 743, 755-759 (Pa.1979); Matter of Wood, 358 N.E.2d 128, 133 (Ind.1976). We do not mean to say that private sexual conduct by an attorney cannot be violative of the ICPRL, but only that it is not ......
  • Howard, In re, No. 77446
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 19, 1995
    ...A.2d 1198, 1202 (1990); In re Wood, 489 N.E.2d 1189, 1191 (Ind.1986); People v. Gibbons, 685 P.2d 168, 175 (Colo. banc 1984); In re Wood, 265 Ind. 616, 358 N.E.2d 128, 133 Howard responds that the Chief Disciplinary Counsel failed to establish clear and convincing evidence of quid pro quo s......
  • Duncanson v. State, No. 3-377A80
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 17, 1979
    ...consent of either of the parties to a conversation that it be recorded, a Fourth Amendment violation occurs. See Matter of Wood (1976), 265 Ind. 616, 358 N.E.2d 128, 132. Duncanson contends that even if evidence of bias is collateral to the issue of guilt and, therefore, may be excluded as ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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