Disciplinary Actions

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.

Probation
Floyd County attorney Lloyd E. Koehler was suspended for 180 days, stayed pending successful completion of a probationary period of at least three years, for years of mismanagement of his law firm’s trust accounts. Koehler must abide by the terms of the attorney discipline agreement the court accepted in a Nov. 13 order, most notably monitoring by a qualified certified public accountant who will report monthly to the commission. Koehler also must pay the commission $14,404.96 for the cost of its investigative expenses, $250 to the clerk for court costs and $358 to the court for hearing officer expenses. Story, Page 6.

Suspension
Kosciusko County attorney Scott J. Lennox was suspended from the practice of law for failing to cooperate with investigations of grievances against him resulting in four pending disciplinary complains, per a Nov. 8 order. Lennox is facing felony fraud and theft charges relating to allegations that he stole thousands of dollars from his former law firm, Lennox, Sobek & Buehler LLC, in Warsaw. Lennox is ordered to reimburse the commission $534.75 for the costs of prosecuting one of the proceedings. Story, Page 16.

Vindication
Howard County attorney James R. Fleming was cleared of allegations that as a former prosecutor he had paid a witness for testimony in a 2010 murder trial. In a Nov. 8 order, justices concluded Fleming did not commit professional misconduct. The disciplinary commission had charged him with violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 3.4(b) by offering an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law and Rule 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.•