In the Matter of: Joseph C. Lehman , 2016 Ind. LEXIS 520 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • RESPONDENT PRO SE                                     ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT
    Joseph C. Lehman                                      DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
    Goshen, Indiana                                       G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary
    Aaron Johnson, Staff Attorney
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    FILED
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    Jul 21 2016, 10:32 am
    In the                         CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    Indiana Supreme Court
    and Tax Court
    _________________________________
    No. 20S00-1507-DI-431
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    JOSEPH C. LEHMAN,
    Respondent.
    _________________________________
    Attorney Discipline Action
    Hearing Officer David L. Chidester
    _________________________________
    July 21, 2016
    Per Curiam.
    We find that Respondent, Joseph Lehman, engaged in conduct in contempt of this Court
    by repeatedly engaging in the practice of law while suspended. For his contempt, we conclude
    that Respondent should be disbarred.
    This matter is before the Court on the report of the hearing officer appointed by this
    Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s “Verified
    Petition for Rule to Show Cause.” Respondent’s 1991 admission to this state’s bar and his
    unauthorized practice of law in this state while suspended subject him to this Court’s disciplinary
    jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.
    Discussion
    By order of February 19, 2014, this Court suspended Respondent from the practice of law
    for not less than two years, effective April 3, 2014, for repeated violations of multiple rules
    governing professional conduct.      Respondent’s misconduct included systemic negligence in
    client representations, improper disposal of closed files resulting in the disclosure of confidential
    information, improper trust account management, and numerous judicial findings of contempt
    for failing to appear at hearings. See Matter of Lehman, 
    3 N.E.3d 536
    (Ind. 2014). He has not
    sought reinstatement.
    On or about the date his active suspension began, Respondent entered his appearance as
    counsel for the mother in a paternity action. Two months later, after the paternity court had
    ordered Respondent’s appearance be withdrawn due to his suspension, Respondent filed with the
    court a minute entry purporting to represent the mother as her “translator” and requesting a final
    hearing be set. As a result of that conduct, we issued an order finding Respondent in contempt
    and ordering Respondent to pay a fine of $500 within sixty days. Matter of Lehman, ___ N.E.3d
    ___, 
    2015 WL 10844474
    (Ind. Oct. 7, 2015). Respondent has not paid that fine.
    On July 22, 2015, the Commission filed another verified petition for rule to show cause
    against Respondent, alleging that in separate instances during the fall of 2014, Respondent
    provided legal consultation to two individuals, and sought and received payment from those
    individuals in return. We appointed a hearing officer to hear the matter.1 The hearing officer
    filed his “Findings of Fact and Recommendation of Sanction” on March 15, 2016. Neither party
    has filed a petition for review of those findings or a brief on sanctions. We accept and adopt the
    hearing officer’s findings that Respondent violated this Court’s order suspending him from the
    practice of law.
    1
    Separately, Respondent was criminally charged with, and found guilty of, three counts of unauthorized
    practice of law in connection with these acts and others. The Court of Appeals recently affirmed
    Respondent’s convictions. Lehman v. State, ___ N.E.3d ___, 
    2016 WL 3058293
    (Ind. Ct. App. May 31,
    2016), trans. pending.
    2
    The sanctions this Court may impose for contempt include ordering a fine, disgorgement
    of ill-gotten gains, imprisonment, and extension of an attorney’s suspension or removal from
    practice. See Matter of Hurtt, 
    43 N.E.3d 567
    (Ind. 2015); Matter of Haigh, 
    7 N.E.3d 980
    (Ind.
    2014).    Respondent’s repeated contemptuous acts over the years have resulted in fines,
    imprisonment, and the suspension of his law license. None of the sanctions previously imposed
    has deterred Respondent from continuing to engage in the practice of law in defiance of his
    suspension order, and Respondent’s repeated violations of that order have exposed the public to
    the danger of misconduct by an attorney who has yet to prove his remorse, rehabilitation, and
    fitness to practice law through the reinstatement process. Under these circumstances, the Court
    concludes that disbarment is warranted.
    Conclusion
    The Court concludes that Respondent engaged in conduct in contempt of this Court by
    practicing law on multiple occasions while suspended. For Respondent’s contempt, the Court
    disbars Respondent from the practice of law in this state, effective immediately. Respondent
    shall fulfill all the duties of a disbarred attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).
    The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent, and the hearing officer appointed
    in this case is discharged.
    All Justices concur.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20S00-1507-DI-431

Citation Numbers: 55 N.E.3d 821, 2016 Ind. LEXIS 520

Filed Date: 7/21/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/11/2024