Search Site
Menu
Indiana lawyer who criticized judge’s “stubbornly injudicious attitude” and threatened Bar complaint against opposing counsel given 60 day suspension

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Indiana Supreme Court opinion suspending a lawyer for 60 days without automatic reinstatement who accused a judge of having a “stubbornly injudicious attitude” and threatened Bar complaint against opposing counsel. The disciplinary case is In the Matter of Michael E. Halpin, Case No. 45S00-1408-DI-559 (11/10/15), and the disciplinary opinion is here:  https://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2015-45S00-1408-DI-559.pdf

The lawyer represented the mother in a paternity and custody case in 2012 and 2013.  According to the opinion, “(i)n several written communications between August 7, 2012 and April 12, 2013, Respondent accused Father’s counsel of having arranged venue in Tippecanoe County by fraud, deceit, and trickery; of intentionally violating Mother’s rights as a disabled person in refusing to transfer venue to Lake County; and in engaging in other unprofessional and unethical conduct.  Respondent also wrote to Father’s counsel, ‘[y]our possibly homophobic, racist, sexist clients should not be using the Courts to further that agenda.’”

“In some of these communications, Respondent threatened to file a disciplinary complaint against Father’s counsel unless counsel would accede to Respondent’s demands that venue be transferred to Lake County. Respondent also accused Father of having stolen money from his client and proposed that Respondent and Mother would not press criminal charges if opposing counsel would agree that the paternity case should be transferred to Lake County.”

In a motion filed in April 2013 challenging the denial of a change of venue, the lawyer said the judge who denied the change of venue had a “stubbornly injudicious attitude” toward the court proceeding, and that the judge was “taking off on detours and frolics that ignore the fact that there are laws in Indiana that the court is supposed to follow and uphold.”

According to the opinion, the lawyer’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and he had acted in an offensive manner.  The hearing officer found the lawyer’s lack of remorse as aggravation, and his lack of prior discipline as mitigation, which the opinion adopted.  The lawyer was suspended for 60 days beginning on December 21, 2015, without automatic reinstatement.

Bottom line: This appears to be another example of a lawyer going too far in “zealously” representing a client and, in this case, the lawyer’s conduct resulted in a 60 day suspension for the lawyer, who had no prior discipline (and also apparently had no remorse).

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

[email protected]

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Contact us

Please fill out the form below and one of our attorneys will contact you.

Quick Contact Form

Our Office
  • Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A
    2999 Alt. 19
    Suite A
    Palm Harbor, Florida 34683
    Phone: 727-799-1688
    Email: [email protected]
Podcast
AV Rated
AVVO
AVVO Logo