In re Hammond

559 N.E.2d 310, 1990 Ind. LEXIS 173, 1990 WL 128913
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 31, 1990
DocketNo. 13S00-8810-JD-862
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 559 N.E.2d 310 (In re Hammond) 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 Hammond, 559 N.E.2d 310, 1990 Ind. LEXIS 173, 1990 WL 128913 (Ind. 1990).

Opinion

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

PER CURIAM.

The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications (Commission) and the Respondent, the Honorable Elizabeth W. Hammond, Judge of the Crawford Circuit Court, have entered into and now tender for this Court's approval a Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline. The Commission initiated the above-captioned cause with the filing of a Notice of Institution of Formal Proceedings and Statement of Charges and an Amended Notice of Institution of Formal Proceedings and Statement of Charges against the Respondent under the authority of Admission and Discipline Rule 25 and pursuant to 1.0. 338-2.1-6-10.

The Commission's Amended Statement of Charges contained three counts of alleged misconduct. The first two counts related to alleged actions of Respondent as an attorney at a time prior to becoming judge of the Crawford Circuit Court. The third count related to alleged misconduct as a judge.

Count I of the Statement of Charges alleged that Respondent undertook the representation of one Boyd Campbell who sought assistance in the execution of a new will. Prior to this representation Campbell had executed a will whereby he purported to disinherit his wife and where he did disinherit several of his children, including a daughter, Wanda Faye Bradshaw. It was alleged that Respondent personally knew Bradshaw and that Respondent allowed Bradshaw to dictate terms to be included in her father's new will, all without the father's knowledge. At the time of execution of the new will it was alleged that Respondent read certain passages to Campbell for his approval, but that after execution inserted pages containing the material dictated by Bradshaw.

Count II of the Amended Statement of Charges asserted that roughly sixteen months after the execution of the new will, Respondent went to Campbell's house to have Campbell execute a power-of-attorney. It was alleged that Respondent returned to her office with another will of Boyd Campbell's and that she directed her secretary to witness this will even though the secretary had not been present when Campbell signed this will. In addition, it was alleged that on this second will pre[311]*311pared by Respondent the typed execution date appeared to have been typewritten over another date which happened to be the execution date of the first will Respondent prepared for Campbell.

Under the facts alleged in Counts I and II the Commission charged that Respondent's conduct constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute and that such conduct occurred within six years prior to commencement of Respondent's current term of office. It was specifically alleged that Respondent was in flagrant violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Indiana Rules of Court, 1983 and 1985, in that she engaged in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude, DR 1-102(A)(8), and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and in conduct adversely reflecting on her fitness to practice law, DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), (6); and that Respondent failed to preserve the confidences of her clients, DR 4-101, failed to exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of her clients, Canon 5, and failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety, DR 9-101. The Commission sought Respondent's removal from office and permanent suspension from the practice of law pursuant to Indiana Code 338-2.1-6-4.

In Count III the Commission alleged that while serving as Judge of the Crawford Circuit Court, the Respondent maintained a fiduciary relationship with Wanda Faye Bradshaw as her attorney-in-fact under a power-of-attorney. Wanda Bradshaw apparently owned a property which she rent ed to Peggy Hammond, a person unrelated to the Respondent. The rent for the property was paid from the Clerk of the Crawford Cireuit Court pursuant to an assignment portion of Ms. Hammond's child support income. Respondent was not the judge in Ms. Hammond's support and dissolution case that gave rise to the rent payments from the Clerk of the Crawford Circuit Court. When a dispute arose between Ms. Hammond and Wanda Faye Bradshaw over some damage to the leased property it was alleged that Respondent ordered the Clerk of her court to take an additional $100 from the child support payment, over and above the amount assigned, and to forward the money to Wanda Faye Bradshaw.

Under the facts alleged in Count III the Commission alleged that the Respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. 1.C. 88-2.1-6-4. Specifically, the Commission alleged that Respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct in failing to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary; the Respondent violated Canon 2 in that she failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety and engaged in conduct destructive to the public's confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and allowed her social relationships to influence her judicial conduct; the Respondent committed a knowing intentional abuse of office in violation of Canon 2 in that she lent the prestige of her office to advance the private interests of Wanda Faye Bradshaw; that Respondent violated Canon 8 in that she considered and acted upon ex parte communication and denied Peggy Hammond her right to be heard according to law; that Respondent violated Canon 8 by requiring staff and other court officials to observe standards of fidelity and diligence; and that Respondent violated Canon 5 by serving as a fiduciary for other than a family member.

Respondent filed an answer which denied most of the factual allegations and all three charges of misconduct. Thereafter, Special Masters were appointed by this Court to conduct the hearing on this case.

Just prior to the hearing the parties reached an agreement which they have tendered to this Court for approval. The agreement entitled Statement of Cireum-stances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline contains a section of agreed facts. It was agreed that the controversy surrounding the will of Boyd Campbell and the disposition of his assets was a matter of common knowledge in English, Indiana, partly because some of the children were very open about the dispute with friends. Respondent acknowledged that she was [312]*312aware of the controversy and that she had in fact prepared several deeds re-distributing property within the Campbell family in July and August, 1988. Respondent also acknowledged that prior to Boyd Campbell's call on August 3, 1988, to set up an appointment for the preparation of a new will, Wanda Faye Bradshaw called and expressed her dissatisfaction with a prior will of Boyd Campbell which had been prepared by another attorney, and asked if Respondent could prepare a new will for Boyd Campbell. The prior will favored a brother of Wanda Faye Bradshaw. During this period Respondent had also prepared a will for Zola Bradshaw, the wife of Boyd, in which Wanda Faye Bradshaw was the sole beneficiary except that Boyd was allowed his "lawful share."

Respondent recognized that she represented Boyd and Zola Campbell when she knew there was considerable controversy among the clients and their family, including threats from Zola that she would leave Boyd if he did not include Wanda in his will. - Respondent drafted several will drafts for Boyd Campbell which reflected various dispositions of his property. On September 19, 1988, Boyd executed a will that included Wanda as a contingent beneficiary with a $4000 deduction to offset a debt owed by Wanda to Boyd.

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

Related

In the Matter of Jason Allen Cichowicz
Indiana Supreme Court, 2023
Matter of Drury
602 N.E.2d 1000 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
559 N.E.2d 310, 1990 Ind. LEXIS 173, 1990 WL 128913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hammond-ind-1990.