In the Matter of Harshey

Indiana Supreme Court

In the Matter of Harshey

899 N.E.2d 644, 2009 Ind. LEXIS 5, 2009 WL 140744

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 2009

Docket49S00-0810-DI-566

StatusPublished

This text of 899 N.E.2d 644 (In the Matter of Harshey) 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 Harshey, 899 N.E.2d 644, 2009 Ind. LEXIS 5, 2009 WL 140744 (Ind. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

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

On November 5, 2008, 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 respond to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s demands for a response to a grievance filed against Respondent. The order required that Respondent show cause in *645 writing within 10 days of service of the order. Respondent has not submitted a response to the Court’s order to show cause. On December 4, 2008, 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, effective immediately. Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(3), the suspension shall continue until: (1) the Executive Secretary of the Disciplinary Commission certifies to the Court that Respondent has cooperated fully with the investigation; (2) the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or (3) until further order of this Court. 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 $516.64 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, to all other entities entitled to notice under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d), and to Thomson/West for publication 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

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

On November 5, 2008, 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 respond to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s demands for a response to a grievance filed against Respondent. The order required that Respondent show cause in *645 writing within 10 days of service of the order. Respondent has not submitted a response to the Court’s order to show cause. On December 4, 2008, 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, effective immediately. Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(3), the suspension shall continue until: (1) the Executive Secretary of the Disciplinary Commission certifies to the Court that Respondent has cooperated fully with the investigation; (2) the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of; or (3) until further order of this Court. 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 $516.64 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, to all other entities entitled to notice under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d), and to Thomson/West for publication in the bound volumes of this Court’s decisions.

All Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

899 N.E.2d 644, 2009 Ind. LEXIS 5, 2009 WL 140744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-harshey-ind-2009.