ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT
Pro se DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary
Robert D. Shook, Staff Attorney
Indianapolis, Indiana
______________________________________________________________________________
In the FILED
Indiana Supreme Court
Jun 20 2012, 10:59 am
_________________________________ CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
No. 82S00-1111-DI-662
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOUGLAS W. PATTERSON,
Respondent.
_________________________________
Attorney Discipline Action
Hearing Officer Wayne S. Trockman
_________________________________
June 20, 2012
Per Curiam.
We find that Respondent, Douglas W. Patterson, engaged in attorney misconduct by
committing three counts of class D felony theft of client funds and by engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. For this misconduct, we find that
Respondent should be disbarred.
This matter is before the Court on the report of the hearing officer appointed by this
Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission's "Verified
Complaint for Disciplinary Action." Respondent's 1989 admission to this state's bar subjects
him to this Court's disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.
Background
Prior relevant disciplinary actions against Respondent. The Commission filed a verified
complaint against Respondent on February 25, 2004, initiating Cause No. 82S00-0402-DI-90.
In a per curiam opinion, this Court found that Respondent wrote unauthorized checks totaling
$10,500 on the firm's trust account. Respondent made false statements regarding the matter
during the Commission's investigation and at the hearing. The Court concluded that Respondent
violated these Professional Rules of Conduct prohibiting the following misconduct:
Rule 1.15(a): Failure to hold property of clients properly in trust.
Rule 8.4(b): Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
Rule 8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation.
The Court imposed a suspension of at least three years, which is still in effect. See
Matter of Patterson, 888 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 2008). On April 30, 2009, this Court entered an order
finding Respondent in contempt for practicing law while suspended and imposed a $500 fine.
See Matter of Patterson, 907 N.E.2d 970 (Ind. 2009).
On January 26, 2011, Respondent was convicted on a guilty plea to three counts of Theft,
all class D felonies (the convictions that are the basis of the current action). The Commission
filed a "Notice of Guilty Finding and Request for Suspension" on February 21, 2011, initiating
Cause No. 82S00-1102-DI-96. The Court entered an order of interim suspension on April 28,
2011, which is still in effect. See Matter of Patterson, 945 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. 2011).
The current action. The Commission filed a "Verified Complaint for Disciplinary
Action" against Respondent on November 14, 2011. Based on Respondent's felony convictions
described above, the Commission charged Respondent with violating these Professional Rules of
Conduct prohibiting the following misconduct:
Rule 8.4(b): Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
2
Rule 8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation.
Respondent was served with the complaint and did not respond. Accordingly, the
hearing officer took the facts alleged in the complaint as true. See Admis. Disc. R. 23(14)(c).
The hearing officer found that Respondent was convicted on a guilty plea to three counts
of Theft, all class D felonies. The charges were based on exercising unauthorized control over
funds in excess of $17,000 belonging to 24 clients or former clients. The funds included prepaid
attorney fees and filing fees. Respondent was sentenced to three years on each count, with one
year executed, to be served concurrently.
Discussion
Neither party filed a petition for review of the hearing officer's report. When neither
party challenges the findings of the hearing officer, "we accept and adopt those findings but
reserve final judgment as to misconduct and sanction." Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 1257, 1258
(Ind. 2000). We concur in the hearing officer's findings of fact and conclude that Respondent
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
Misappropriation of client funds is a grave transgression. It demonstrates
a conscious desire to accomplish an unlawful act, denotes a lack of virtually all
personal characteristics we deem important to law practice, threatens to bring
significant misfortune on the unsuspecting client and severely impugns the
integrity of the profession.
Matter of Hill, 655 N.E.2d 343, 345 (Ind. 1995).
As to discipline, we frequently look for guidance to the American Bar Association's
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (as amended in 1992) ("Standards"). The Standards
provide:
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client
property and causes injury or potentially serious injury to a client.
3
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in serious criminal
conduct a necessary element of which includes . . . misappropriation, or theft . . . .
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in any other intentional
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously
adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice.
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct
that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional with the intent to obtain a benefit
for the lawyer . . . and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client . . . .
Standards 4.11, 5.11(a), 5.11(b), and 7.1. We conclude that each of these Standards applies to
the matter before us. We therefore conclude that Respondent's conduct warrants disbarment.
See Matter of Hill, 655 N.E.2d 343, 345 (Ind. 1995) (converting estate funds warranted
disbarment).
The Court already has imposed a three-year suspension on Respondent based in part on
the conduct underlying the current case. In addition, there are circumstances in this case that
were not present in the prior case: (1) the amount of client funds converted and the number of
clients involved are now known to be greater than cited in the prior case; and (2) Respondent's
acts have been adjudicated to constitute multiple felonies. These considerations support the
Court's decision that disbarment is warranted at this time.
Conclusion
The Court concludes that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b)
and 8.4(c) by committing three counts of class D felony theft of client funds and by engaging in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
For Respondent's professional misconduct, the Court disbars Respondent from the
practice of law in this state effective immediately. Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a
disbarred attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).
4
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. The hearing officer
appointed in this case is discharged.
The Clerk of this Court is directed to give notice of this opinion to the hearing officer, to
the parties or their respective attorneys, and to all other entities entitled to notice under
Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d). The Clerk is further directed to post this opinion to the
Court's website, and Thomson Reuters is directed to publish a copy of this opinion in the bound
volumes of this Court's decisions.
All Justices concur.
5