Disciplinary Actions: April 1-June 28, 2023

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

Fishers attorney Theodore J. Minch was placed on probation by the Indiana Supreme Court, effective immediately, in a June 28 order on reciprocal discipline. Minch is under a one-year suspension in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for incompetent performance and insufficiently responding to a show cause order. He has also been placed under “practice conditions” in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana until he is readmitted to the 7th Circuit. During the term of probation, Minch must remain compliant with the Southern District’s practice conditions, must not violate the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct or any other law, and must fully comply with all orders issued by any state or federal court. His probation will remain in effect as long as the 7th Circuit suspension is in effect, and he may petition to terminate probation once he is reinstated to practice in the 7th Circuit. All justices concurred except Justice Geoffrey Slaughter, who declined to impose any reciprocal discipline because the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission did not seek it.

Public reprimand

Portage attorney Christopher D. Stidham was publicly reprimanded in an April 10 order for violating Professional Conduct Rules 1.3 and 1.4. After being retained by a criminal client, Stidham did not make himself available to the client and did not inform the client that he was placed under interim suspension in an unrelated disciplinary matter. The client did not learn of the suspension until a judge informed him of it during a pretrial conference.

Suspension

Huntington attorney Susan M. Bryan-Wieczorek was suspended for 180 days without automatic reinstatement, effective June 15, in a May 5 order for violations of Professional Conduct Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.4(b), 1.16(d) and 8.4(c). Bryan-Wieczorek accepted at least $650 from a bankruptcy client but never filed a bankruptcy petition, despite repeatedly leading the client to believe she had. During that time, the client had a small claims judgment entered against her and had interest accruing on debts owed. Bryan-Wieczorek also made numerous false representations to the client. During the Disciplinary Commission’s investigation, Bryan-Wieczorek produced several purported letters alluding to the client’s nonpayment of an outstanding fee balance, but the client never received the letters, which were inconsistent with the communications she did receive. Bryan-Wieczorek never refunded the unearned fees or returned the client’s documents.

Indianapolis attorney Guerino John Cento was suspended for 120 days, with 60 days actively served and the remainder stayed subject to completion of at least one year of probation of monitoring by the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, in a June 23 order, effective immediately. The suspension came after Cento pleaded guilty to two counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, resulting in a violation of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b).

Monticello attorney Clinton A. Hardesty was placed under interim suspension, effective immediately, in a May 5 order after he was found guilty of Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. At the time of the May 5 order, Hardesty was already under two other suspensions. The interim suspension will continue until further order of the Indiana Supreme Court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect.

Elkhart attorney Olubunmi O. Okanlami’s suspension without automatic reinstatement was reimposed, effective May 22, after her conditional reinstatement to the practice of law was revoked in an April 10 order. Okanlami resigned Jan. 10, 2013, petitioned for reinstatement in 2019 and was granted conditional reinstatement on Jan. 8, 2021, subject to at least two years of probation with JLAP monitoring. On Jan. 20, 2023, the Disciplinary Commission filed a motion to revoke Okanlami’s probation on the ground that she violated her JLAP monitoring agreement in numerous ways. Also, numerous criminal cases have been initiated against Okanlami in recent months, but she did not report any of them to JLAP. Okanlami had pleaded guilty in one of those cases as of the date of the discipline order. She did not file a response to the commission’s motion. She may petition for reinstatement provided she pays the costs of the proceeding, fulfills the duties of a suspended attorney and satisfies the requirements for reinstatement.•