Disciplinary Actions – 5/26

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.

Suspensions
256 attorneys are suspended for failing pay the annual registration fee required to be licensed to practice law in Indiana
or to file an exemption affidavit as contemplated by Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 2, according to a May 14, 2010,
Supreme Court order. The order also suspended certain attorneys who failed to comply with the continuing legal education requirements
of Admission and Discipline Rule 29, Sections 3 or 10.

Although the suspension is effective on the date of the order for purposes of reinstatement procedures, the proscription
against the actual practice of law will go into effect at 11:59 p.m. June 7, 2010. The delay will allow time for copies of
the order to be sent, received, and acted upon by suspended attorneys.

To be reinstated, an attorney must comply with applicable reinstatement procedures and by paying any applicable penalties.
The reinstatement procedure for nonpayment of attorney fees is in Ind. Admis. and Disc. R. 2(h). The reinstatement procedure
for failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements in found in Ind. Admis. and Disc. R. 29, Section 10(b).

If the Disciplinary Commission decided sufficient reasons existed to grant requests for extensions of time in which to comply
with the continuing legal education requirements, those attorneys’ names were not included in the order, the court noted.

The list can be found at www.in.gov/judiciary/orders/other.

Public reprimand
Stacy L. Kelley of Marion County has been publicly reprimanded, according to a May 7, 2010, Supreme Court
order approving statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline.

Kelley violated Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(g).

In June 2008, Kelley began receiving on her unlisted phone number persistent pre-recorded messages from a company seeking
a person by the name of Kelley’s husband. She and her husband agreed that she would call the company at the toll-free
number given in the messages. Accordingly, she called the number and spoke to a male representative of the company, identifying
her husband as a client. Noting what she thought was a feminine-sounding voice, she gratuitously asked the company’s
representative if he was “gay” or “sweet,” according to court documents. After the representative
commented on the unprofessional nature of this inquiry, the phone conversation ended abruptly.

Mitigating facts are Kelley has no disciplinary history; she cooperated with the Disciplinary Commission; she has a history
of providing service to the legal profession; her comments were made after enduring harassing phone calls to her home; and
she demonstrated remorse by apologizing to the company representative.•