Disciplinary Actions – 6/18/14

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission brings charges against attorneys who have violated the state’s rules for admission to the bar and Rules of Professional Conduct. The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications brings charges against judges, judicial officers, or judicial candidates for misconduct. Details of attorneys’ and judges’ actions for which they are being disciplined by the Supreme Court will be included unless they are not a matter of public record under the court’s rules.

Termination of Noncooperation Suspension

The Indiana Supreme Court terminated the suspension of Brad J. Weber, of Adams County, May 14. He was suspended for failure to cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission. He is reinstated to the practice of law as long as no other suspension is in effect.

Suspension
Hubert E. Kelly has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana due to a suspension from practice in Arizona. He is suspended indefinitely in Indiana, per a May 29 order. If Kelly is reinstated in Arizona, he may file for reinstatement in Indiana.

Craig R. Benson, of Monroe County, has been suspended for at least 180 days, without automatic reinstatement, per a June 2 order. Justice Steven David dissented, seeking a more severe sanction. Benson, while representing two companies in a debt-collection action, ignored a court order to not distribute $75,000 in proceeds from the sale of the companies’ assets. Benson distributed nearly half of the money to himself for attorney fees and the remaining money to various creditors of the clients. He also advised these two companies to file for bankruptcy to remove jurisdiction from the state trial court to circumvent the trial court’s orders. The trial court found him in contempt for violating the order, fined him $75,000 and ordered him incarcerated until the fine was paid. He spent two days in jail and was released.

The justices found he violated Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(c) and 8.4(d). Benson’s suspension begins July 14 and the costs of the proceeding are assessed against him.•