From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Failure to Satisfy, 94S00-0801-MS-9 (Ind. 3-18-2008)

Supreme Court of Indiana
Mar 18, 2008
No. 94S00-0801-MS-9 (Ind. Mar. 18, 2008)

Opinion

No. 94S00-0801-MS-9.

March 18, 2008.


ORDER ON PETITION TO SUSPEND ATTORNEYS FOR FAILURE TO PAY COSTS

On January 8, 2008, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a "Petition for Suspension of Certain Attorneys for Failure to Satisfy Costs Ordered in Connection with Lawyer Discipline Proceedings," asserting each of the Respondents failed to pay costs assessed in a disciplinary action by the due date of the attorney's annual registration fee (October 1), in violation of the requirements of Indiana Admission and Discipline Rules 23(10)(f)(5), 23(16), and (2)(b).

The Commission has moved to dismiss the petition with respect to the following attorneys because they have since paid their costs in full: Lon D. Bryan, James R. Kilburn, Thomas L. Montgomery, William J. Rawls, and Barbara A. Transki.

The following Respondents have requested extensions of time in which to pay their costs in full: Jacob A. Atanga and Dorothy J. Thomsen.

Being duly advised, the Court now:

(1) DISMISSES the petition with respect to Lon D. Bryan, James R. Kilburn, Thomas L. Montgomery, William J. Rawls, and Barbara A. Transki.

(2) GRANTS an extension of time to and including March 30, 2008, for Jacob A. Atanga to pay his costs in full.

(3) GRANTS an extension of time to and including October 1, 2008, for Dorothy J. Thomsen to pay her costs in full.

(4) SUSPENDS from the practice of law in Indiana the following attorneys: Eric S. Crockett, Daniel S. Kelly, and David L. Martenet. The suspension shall become effective ten days from the date of this order. These Respondents shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). A suspended Respondent may file an application for reinstatement to the practice of law in this state pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule (2)(h), provided the requirements of that provision are met. Applications for reinstatement or for other relief shall be filed under the cause number for this case.

The Court directs the Clerk to forward a copy of this Order to Respondents or Respondents' attorneys, to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, and to all other entities entitled to notice under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d).

All Justices concur.


Summaries of

In re Failure to Satisfy, 94S00-0801-MS-9 (Ind. 3-18-2008)

Supreme Court of Indiana
Mar 18, 2008
No. 94S00-0801-MS-9 (Ind. Mar. 18, 2008)
Case details for

In re Failure to Satisfy, 94S00-0801-MS-9 (Ind. 3-18-2008)

Case Details

Full title:In re Failure to Satisfy Costs in Lawyer Disciplinary Cases of: Jacob A…

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Mar 18, 2008

Citations

No. 94S00-0801-MS-9 (Ind. Mar. 18, 2008)