In Matter of Harris, 98S00-0609-CO-324 (Ind. 1-22-2007)

Full title: IN THE MATTER OF RONALD DEAN HARRIS

Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Jan 22, 2007

No. 98S00-0609-CO-324 (Ind. Jan. 22, 2007)

Opinion

No. 98S00-0609-CO-324.

Filed January 22, 2007.

RANDALL T. SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

ORDER FINDING FOR THE RESPONDENT

Effective June 2, 2005, this Court suspended respondent for failure to obtain necessary Continuing Legal Education credits. On September 7, 2006, the Indiana Supreme Court Commission for Legal Education filed a Verified Information and Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Respondent Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, alleging that in March 2006, respondent practiced law while still subject to the June 2, 2005 suspension.

On October 20, 2006, respondent filed his Response to Order to Show Cause in which he asserted that on November 11, 2005, he had filed a petition for automatic reinstatement, noting completion of the required CLE credits, and had tendered the required reinstatement fee. Respondent also asserts that the Commission's filing on September 7, 2006, was the first time he learned that the bank had dishonored his check for the reinstatement fee and that the Commission had not automatically reinstated him. He contends that he thought the Commission had automatically reinstated him in November 2005, well before his meeting with the client in March 2006. The Commission did not file a reply to respondent's Response.

In order to find a party in contempt for violation of a court order, willful disobedience must be established. See, e.g. In re Marriage of Glendenning, 684 N.E.2d 1175, 1179 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997), trans. denied (1998). There is no information before the Court to indicate that respondent's dishonored check to the Commission was anything more than an innocent error. Without further evidence, it seems this is more a case of neglect than willful disobedience. We therefore find for respondent and hold that he has not been shown to have willfully disobeyed the Court's Order suspending him effective June 2, 2005.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that we find for respondent and hold that he has not been shown to have willfully disobeyed the Court's Order as alleged in the Commission's Verified Information and Motion filed September 7, 2006.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the parties in this cause and their respective attorneys.

DONE at Indianapolis, Indiana, this 22nd day of January, 2007.

All Justices concur.