Opinion
Supreme Court Case No. 49S00-1602-DI-90
01-21-2022
In the MATTER OF: Michael C. BRATCHER, Petitioner
Published Order Granting Reinstatement to the Practice of Law
On March 21, 2016, this Court suspended Petitioner for not less than 18 months without automatic reinstatement, effective immediately. Petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement on August 20, 2019, and we appointed a hearing officer. Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer issued a report on November 23, 2021, recommending that Petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law in Indiana. Neither party has filed a petition for review.
A petition for reinstatement may be granted only if the petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence that:
(1) The petitioner desires in good faith to obtain restoration of his or her privilege to practice law;
(2) The petitioner has not practiced law in this State or attempted to do so since he or she was disciplined;
(3) The petitioner has complied fully with the terms of the order for discipline;
(4) The petitioner's attitude towards the misconduct for which he or she was disciplined is one of genuine remorse;
(5) The petitioner's conduct since the discipline was imposed has been exemplary and above reproach;
(6) The petitioner has a proper understanding of and attitude towards the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will conduct himself or herself in conformity with such standards;
(7) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an officer of the Courts; and
(8) The disability has been removed, if the discipline was imposed by reason
of physical or mental illness or infirmity, or for use of or addiction to intoxicants or drugs.
Admis. Disc. R. 23(18)(b)(3).
This Court, being duly advised, finds that the recommendation of the hearing officer should be accepted. The Court therefore GRANTS the petition for reinstatement and REINSTATES Petitioner as a member of the Indiana bar as of the date of this order.
The hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged. Given the hearing officer's inexplicable delay of nearly one year in issuing his report, the Court elects to waive any costs that remain owing in this matter.
All Justices concur.