In re Hanson

Published Order Approving Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline

Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11), the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” stipulating agreed facts and proposed discipline as summarized below.

Stipulated Facts: Respondent sent a threatening and obscene private social media message to a client’s ex-husband.

The parties cite no facts in aggravation. In mitigation, the parties cite Respondent’s lack of prior discipline, his cooperation with the Commission, and his remorse.

Violation: The parties agree that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 4.4(a), which prohibits using means in representing a client that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person. The parties also agree that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d), which prohibits engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Discipline: The parties propose the appropriate discipline is a suspension of 30 days with automatic reinstatement. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, now approves the agreed discipline.

For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law for a period of 30 days, beginning March 24, 2016. Respondent shall not undertake any new legal matters between service of this order and the effective date of the suspension, and Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). At the conclusion of the period of suspension, provided there are no other suspensions then in effect, Respondent shall be automatically reinstated to the practice of law, subject to the conditions of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4)(c).

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. With the acceptance of this agreement, the hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged.

All Justices concur.