From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In Matter of Royer, 49S00-0005-DI-343 (Ind. 10-29-2002)

Supreme Court of Indiana
Oct 29, 2002
776 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 49S00-0005-DI-343.

October 29, 2002.


ORDER APPROVING STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONAL AGREEMENT FOR DISCIPLINE

Pursuant to Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 11, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and the respondent have submitted for approval a Statement of Circumstances Agreement for Discipline stipulating a proposed discipline and agreed facts as summarized below:

Facts: The parties agree that the respondent opened a supervised estate on July 5, 1994. The estate was not closed until July 10, 1998. Over the course of a 30-day period in 1997, the client made repeated telephone calls to the respondent seeking information, which were ignored.

Violations: The respondent violated Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 1.4(a) by failing to keep his client adequately informed and failing promptly to comply with reasonable requests for information.

Discipline: Public reprimand.

The Court, having considered the submission of the parties, now APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline. Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a copy of the Order to the hearing officer and in accordance with the provisions of Admis.Disc.R 23, Section 3(d).

DONE at Indianapolis, Indiana, this 29th day of October, 2002. ____________________________ Randall T. Shepard Chief Justice of Indian a

All Justices concur


Summaries of

In Matter of Royer, 49S00-0005-DI-343 (Ind. 10-29-2002)

Supreme Court of Indiana
Oct 29, 2002
776 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. 2002)
Case details for

In Matter of Royer, 49S00-0005-DI-343 (Ind. 10-29-2002)

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF MARTELL B. ROYER

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Oct 29, 2002

Citations

776 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. 2002)

Citing Cases

In re Royer

The parties cite the following fact in aggravation: Respondent received a public reprimand in 2002. See…