Supreme Court accepts resignations of 2 attorneys

Two attorneys are no longer practicing law in the Hoosier State after the Indiana Supreme Court accepted their resignations late last week.

On Thursday, the high court accepted the resignation of Elkhart attorney Anthony J. Iemma, then did the same for Richmond attorney Edward T. Kemp on Friday.  The order accepting Iemma’s resignation said he acknowledge there was a pending investigation or proceeding involving alleged misconduct that he could not defend himself against. Iemma’s entry on the Indiana Roll of Attorneys shows his resignation as the only disciplinary action against him.

Kemp’s entry, however, shows nine concluded disciplinary actions, including his resignation, a 2015 suspension, show cause orders and dismissals. According to the order accepting his resignation, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission entered a “Notice of Finding of Guilt and Request for Suspension” against Kemp on June 28, when it requested an interim suspension based on his conviction for theft. That request was denied as moot after Kemp tendered his resignation.

Both Iemma and Kemp can petition for reinstatement after five years, and any allegations of misconduct may be considered in the reinstatement process. In order to be reinstated, the attorneys must prove their remorse, rehabilitation and fitness to practice law. The costs of the proceedings were assessed against them.

In addition to accepting the resignations, the high court also imposed a 30-day active suspension Thursday against Fort Wayne attorney Kenneth A. Schenk, who has been convicted multiple times of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and has pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana. According to the disciplinary order, Schenk did not report his first two convictions to the commission. Schenk’s OWI prosecution has been deferred pending his completion of the Allen County Alcohol Deterrent Program. 

The parties agreed Schenk violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) and Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11.1)(a)(2) (2016), and also agreed the appropriate discipline would be a 180-day suspension, with 30 days actively served. The remainder of the suspension will be stayed subject to the completion of at least 24 months of probation with monitoring by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.

Schnek’s discipline also prohibits him from using alcohol or other mind-altering substances and requires him to report any violations of his probation to the commission. If he violates his probation, the stay on Schnek’s suspension may be vacated and he can be required to serve his suspension with or without automatic reinstatement.

Schnek’s suspension will begin on Oct. 5, and his probation will remain in effect until it is terminated pursuant to a petition filed under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). The costs of the proceedings are assessed against him.