In Re Atanga

961 N.E.2d 1003, 2012 Ind. LEXIS 62, 2012 WL 653440
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 2012
Docket49S00-1111-DI-664
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 961 N.E.2d 1003 (In Re Atanga) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Atanga, 961 N.E.2d 1003, 2012 Ind. LEXIS 62, 2012 WL 653440 (Ind. 2012).

Opinion

PUBLISHED ORDER SUSPENDING RESPONDENT FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN INDIANA FOR NONCOOPERATION

On November 22, 2011, this Court ordered Respondent to show cause why Respondent should not be immediately suspended from the practice of law in this state for failure to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against Respondent. The order required that Respondent show cause in writing within ten days of service of the order. Respondent has not submitted a response to the Court’s order to show cause. On January 6, 2012, the Commission filed a “Request for Ruling and to Tax Costs.”

Being duly advised, the Court ORDERS that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for noncooperation with the Commission, effective immediately. Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(3), this suspension shall continue until further order of this Court, provided there are no other suspensions then in effect. Respondent is ordered to fulfill the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(5), that Respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Commission $505.79 for the costs of prosecuting this proceeding.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to give notice of this order to Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the address reflected in the Roll of Attorneys. The Clerk of this Court is further directed to give notice of this order to the Disciplinary Commission and to all other entities entitled to notice under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d). The Clerk is further directed to post this order to the Court’s website, and Thomson Reuters is directed to publish a copy of this order in the bound volumes of this Court’s decisions.

All Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ramos-Rodriguez v. Holder
549 F. App'x 576 (Seventh Circuit, 2014)
In Re Lewis
961 N.E.2d 1003 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
961 N.E.2d 1003, 2012 Ind. LEXIS 62, 2012 WL 653440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-atanga-ind-2012.