Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A Zionsville attorney who forged a signature on multiple adoption documents has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana for 30 days with automatic reinstatement.
But Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justice Christopher Goff dissented, believing Michael P. Irk should serve a “substantial period of suspension.”
Irk, of the Irk Law Office P.C., was representing adoptive parents in January 2021, when he filed documents to begin adoption proceedings.
One such document was an “Agency Consent” form, which bore the signature of the director of the adoption agency. Later, a “Prior Written Approval” form was distributed among the parties, also bearing the director’s signature.
Irk notarized both signatures, and he claimed the Agency Consent form had been signed in his presence. But in reality, Irk had cut and pasted the director’s signature from another document without her permission.
Irk and the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission agreed that he violated Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d). The parties also agreed to a 30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement, which the majority justices approved.
Irk’s suspension is effective April 1. He cannot undertake any new legal matters before that date.
The costs of the proceeding, $266.40, are assessed against him.
The case is In the Matter of: Michael P. Irk, 23S-DI-385.
In a brief dissent, Rush and Goff called Irk’s suspension “inadequate under the circumstances.” They cited former Chief Justice Brent Dickson’s dissent in Matter of Robison, 985 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. 2013).
There, Dickson, joined by Rush, wrote, “Much of our legal system is predicated on the authenticity and reliability of signatures. For a lawyer to affix a false signature is a deception that gravely undermines public trust, respect, and confidence in the legal profession. Such inexcusable misconduct is not justified or excused by considerations of client convenience, expediency, or lack of personal gain. Affixing a false signature is manifestly dishonest and an absolute ethical transgression. For this offense, I favor a substantial period of suspension.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.