In re Mocek

Indiana Supreme Court

In re Mocek

841 N.E.2d 552, 2006 Ind. LEXIS 60, 2006 WL 229032

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 30, 2006

DocketNo. 49S00-0303-DI-131

StatusPublished

This text of 841 N.E.2d 552 (In re Mocek) 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 Mocek, 841 N.E.2d 552, 2006 Ind. LEXIS 60, 2006 WL 229032 (Ind. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER CONVERTING SUSPENSION FOR NONCOOPERATION WITH THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS TO INDEFINITE SUSPENSION

On May 23, 2003, pursuant to Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f), this Court suspended respondent, Robert J. Mocek, from the practice of law in this state for failing to provide to the Disciplinary Commission a response to a grievance filed against him. The Disciplinary Commission has now moved to have respondent's suspension converted to an indefinite suspension from the practice of law pursuant to Admis.Dise.R. On November 14, 2005, this Court issued an order directing the parties to provide additional information concerning the Commission's motion to convert respondent's suspension to an indefinite suspension. Respondent has not responded to this order.

We now find that for more than six months subsequent to respondent's suspension he continued to not cooperate. Accordingly, given the passage of time and respondent's continued failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process, we further find that respondent's suspension should be converted to an indefinite suspension from the practice of law, pursuant to Ad-mis.Disc.R. 23(10)(F)(4).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the current suspension from the practice of law of respondent, Robert J. Moeek, for failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process is hereby converted to an indefinite suspension, effective immediately. Accordingly, in order to become readmitted to the practice of law in this state, respondent must successfully petition this Court for readmittance pursuant to Ad-mis. Disc. R. 28(4).

The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward notice of this order to respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his address as reflected in the Roll of Attorneys; to the Disciplinary Commission; and as provided in Admis.Disc.R. 28(8)(d).

All Justices concur.

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

ORDER CONVERTING SUSPENSION FOR NONCOOPERATION WITH THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS TO INDEFINITE SUSPENSION

On May 23, 2003, pursuant to Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f), this Court suspended respondent, Robert J. Mocek, from the practice of law in this state for failing to provide to the Disciplinary Commission a response to a grievance filed against him. The Disciplinary Commission has now moved to have respondent's suspension converted to an indefinite suspension from the practice of law pursuant to Admis.Dise.R. On November 14, 2005, this Court issued an order directing the parties to provide additional information concerning the Commission's motion to convert respondent's suspension to an indefinite suspension. Respondent has not responded to this order.

We now find that for more than six months subsequent to respondent's suspension he continued to not cooperate. Accordingly, given the passage of time and respondent's continued failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process, we further find that respondent's suspension should be converted to an indefinite suspension from the practice of law, pursuant to Ad-mis.Disc.R. 23(10)(F)(4).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the current suspension from the practice of law of respondent, Robert J. Moeek, for failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process is hereby converted to an indefinite suspension, effective immediately. Accordingly, in order to become readmitted to the practice of law in this state, respondent must successfully petition this Court for readmittance pursuant to Ad-mis. Disc. R. 28(4).

The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward notice of this order to respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his address as reflected in the Roll of Attorneys; to the Disciplinary Commission; and as provided in Admis.Disc.R. 28(8)(d).

All Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

841 N.E.2d 552, 2006 Ind. LEXIS 60, 2006 WL 229032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mocek-ind-2006.