Opinion
Supreme Court Case No. 23S-DI-194
09-29-2023
In the MATTER OF: Darren K. PARR, Respondent
Published Order Imposing Reciprocal Discipline
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a verified "Notice of Foreign Discipline and Petition for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause," advising that Respondent was disciplined by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and requesting, pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(20), that reciprocal discipline be imposed in this state. On July 25, 2023, this Court issued an "Order to Show Cause," to which both parties have filed responsive papers.
Respondent was admitted to practice law in Indiana and in Pennsylvania. On August 10, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found Respondent's conduct violated that jurisdiction's rules of professional conduct and ordered Respondent suspended for one year and one day. The Commission alleges, and Respondent does not dispute, that Respondent failed to notify the Commission of his Pennsylvania suspension as required by Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(20)(b). Respondent has not sought reinstatement in Pennsylvania and remains under suspension in that jurisdiction.
The Court finds that there has been no showing, pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(20)(e), of any reason why reciprocal discipline should not be issued in this state. Being duly advised, the Court orders Respondent suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in this state as of the date of this order. Respondent is ordered to fulfill the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). If Respondent is reinstated to practice in Pennsylvania, Respondent may file a "Motion for Release from Reciprocal Suspension" pursuant to and in full compliance with Admission and Discipline Rule 23(20)(g), provided there is no other suspension order in effect at the time and Respondent has been reciprocally suspended for at least as long as he was ordered suspended in Pennsylvania.
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.
All Justices concur.