In the Matter of Doty

Indiana Supreme Court

In the Matter of Doty

894 N.E.2d 530, 2008 Ind. LEXIS 1118, 2008 WL 4514876

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedApril 11, 2008

Docket20S00-0710-DI-456

StatusPublished

This text of 894 N.E.2d 530 (In the Matter of Doty) 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 the Matter of Doty, 894 N.E.2d 530, 2008 Ind. LEXIS 1118, 2008 WL 4514876 (Ind. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

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:

Facts: On May 1, 2000, Respondent pled guilty to Battery as a Class A misdemeanor. On January 23, 2006, Respondent was convicted on a guilty plea of Domestic Battery as a Class A misdemeanor. Respondent has expressed remorse for his misconduct, cooperated with the Commission, and completed all aspects of his recent criminal case probation.

Violation: The parties agree that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b), which prohibits committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

Discipline: The parties agree the appropriate sanction is public reprimand. The Court would usually be inclined to impose suspension in a case involving the type of misconduct in this case. The Court notes, however, that Respondent successfully completed a 26-week “Batterer’s Intervention Program” as part of his criminal case probation and that the Commission agrees that a public reprimand is sufficient in the circumstances of this particular case. The Court, having considered the submission of the parties, now APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline and imposes a public reprimand.

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

The Court directs the Clerk to forward a copy of this Order to the hearing officer, to the parties or their respective attorneys, and to all other entities entitled to notice under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d).

All Justices concur.

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

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:

Facts: On May 1, 2000, Respondent pled guilty to Battery as a Class A misdemeanor. On January 23, 2006, Respondent was convicted on a guilty plea of Domestic Battery as a Class A misdemeanor. Respondent has expressed remorse for his misconduct, cooperated with the Commission, and completed all aspects of his recent criminal case probation.

Violation: The parties agree that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b), which prohibits committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

Discipline: The parties agree the appropriate sanction is public reprimand. The Court would usually be inclined to impose suspension in a case involving the type of misconduct in this case. The Court notes, however, that Respondent successfully completed a 26-week “Batterer’s Intervention Program” as part of his criminal case probation and that the Commission agrees that a public reprimand is sufficient in the circumstances of this particular case. The Court, having considered the submission of the parties, now APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline and imposes a public reprimand.

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

The Court directs the Clerk to forward a copy of this Order to the hearing officer, to the parties or their respective attorneys, and to all other entities entitled to notice under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d).

All Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

894 N.E.2d 530, 2008 Ind. LEXIS 1118, 2008 WL 4514876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-doty-ind-2008.