RESPONDENT ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT
Pro se DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary
Seth T. Pruden, Staff Attorney
Indianapolis, Indiana
______________________________________________________________________________
In the FILED
Indiana Supreme Court Sep 19 2008, 1:02 pm
_________________________________
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
No. 49S00-0803-DI-127 tax court
IN THE MATTER OF:
KIMBERLY O. POWELL,
Respondent.
_________________________________
Attorney Discipline Action
Hon. John W. Hammel, Hearing Officer
_________________________________
September 19, 2008
Per Curiam.
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." We find that Respondent, Kimberly O. Powell, engaged in
repeated and serious acts of attorney misconduct involving multiple clients.
The Respondent's 2003 admission to this state's bar subjects her to this Court's discipli-
nary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. For her misconduct, we find that Respondent
should be disbarred.
Background
The Commission filed a verified complaint on March 17, 2008, which it amended on
March 18, 2008. The amended complaint contains fifteen counts of misconduct involving
specific clients from 2003 (the year she was admitted to the bar) through 2007. The sixteenth
count alleges general incompetence. Respondent failed to answer the complaint, appear, or
otherwise respond to the complaint. Thus, the allegations set forth in the complaint are taken as
true. See Admis. Disc. R. 14(c). Because neither party filed a petition for review of the hearing
officer's finding, "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). Accordingly,
the Court finds that Respondent committed the acts charged in the complaint.
Respondent's misconduct includes failing to take action in cases; failing to keep clients
informed about the status of their cases; failing to respond to clients' requests for information;
accepting a settlement without the client's approval; giving clients erroneous legal advice; failing
to appear at hearings; missing deadlines; failing to properly handle, use, account for, and/or
refund money paid to her by clients; charging unreasonable fees; failing to reduce contingent fee
agreements to writing; misrepresenting the extent of her professional experience to clients; and
making false statements to the Commission during its investigations. The details of some of the
counts of misconduct are summarized below.
Respondent agreed to represent Client 1 on federal drug possession charges. She falsely
told Client 1 she had substantial experience with such cases, charged a $5,000 initial fee, refused
to refund a $2,000 partial payment after being discharged, and attempted to charge an additional
$3,100 despite having done no substantial work on the case.
Client 2 paid Respondent $750 to represent her in an unemployment compensation matter
and to enforce a child support order against her former husband. Respondent took no action in
the unemployment compensation matter. Without Client 2's consent, Respondent settled her
child support claim for $200, even though Client 2 believed the arrearage was over $1000.
Client 2's former husband paid nothing. When Client 2 terminated Respondent and requested a
refund of the $750 fee, Respondent did not refund the fee.
2
Client 3 retained Respondent to represent her in child custody and dissolution matters.
During the representation, Respondent erroneously advised Client 3 she must pay the costs to
have her husband transported from jail to court. Respondent terminated the representation with a
letter implying Client 3 had an outstanding balance when she in fact had a credit. Respondent
failed to withdraw from the child custody and dissolution matters.
Client 4 hired Respondent on a contingent basis to represent her on two claims of
employment discrimination against her employer. The agreement was not in writing. Client 4
received two right to sue letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which
gave notice of deadlines for bringing suit on the claims. Respondent filed suit in federal court
after the deadlines for both claims had passed. Respondent failed to respond to the defendant's
discovery requests until ordered by the court. Respondent failed to respond to the defendant's
summary judgment motion. Summary judgment was entered against Client 4, who was assessed
costs of $2,000.
Respondent agreed to represent Client 5 in a murder case in Illinois for an "engagement
fee" of $10,000, paid by Client 5's parents. Respondent had not met the client, had never
appeared in an Illinois court, and had no experience representing a murder defendant. Without
consulting with Client 5, she advised his parents he should surrender to the authorities. She did
not appear at Client 5's initial hearing or do anything for him except to advise his parents that he
should request a public defender. Respondent refused Client 5's parents' request for a refund.
She falsely told the Commission that she had diligently sought pro hac vice admission in Illinois.
Respondent is currently suspended for failure to cooperate with the Commission in its
investigation of charges against her. See Matter of Powell, 49S00-0711-DI-550 (suspended
March 18, 2008); Matter of Powell, 49S00-0801-DI-32 (suspended June 18, 2008).
Discussion
The Court finds that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules
prohibiting the following misconduct:
3
1.1: Failure to provide competent representation.
1.2(a): Failure to consult with a client about the means of achieving an objective.
1.2(a): Failure to abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of
representation.
1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness.
1.4(a): Failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and
promptly respond to reasonable requests for information.
1.4(b): Failure to explain matter to extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make
informed decisions.
1.5(a): Charging an unreasonable fee.
1.5(c): Violating the requirement that a contingent fee agreement shall be in a writing
1.7(b)(2): Representing a client when there is a concurrent conflict of interest due to the
lawyer's personal interests.
1.15(a): Failure to hold property of clients properly in trust.
1.16(a)(3): Failure to withdraw from representation after being discharged.
1.16(a)(3): Failure to file motion to withdraw after deciding to end representation.
1.16(d): Failure to refund advance payment of fees and expenses that have not been
earned or incurred.
8.1(a): Knowingly making a false statement of material fact to the Disciplinary
Commission in connection with a disciplinary matter.
8.4(b): Committing the criminal act of conversion.
8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
In addition, the Court finds that Respondent violated Indiana Admission and Discipline
Rule 23(29)(a)(1) by failing to keep clients' funds in a clearly identified trust account.
Finding "[t]he magnitude of the misconduct presented in the matter . . . hard to fathom,"
the hearing officer recommended that Respondent be disbarred. We agree. According to the
4
American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (as amended in 1992),
disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and
causes injury or potential injury to a client, see standard 4.11, when a lawyer engages in a
pattern of neglect with respect to client matters and causes serious or potentially serious injury to
a client, see standard 4.41(c), when a lawyer's course of conduct demonstrates that the lawyer
does not understand the most fundamental legal doctrines or procedures, and the lawyer's
conduct causes injury or potential injury to a client, see standard 4.51, or when a lawyer engages
in intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously
adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice, see standard 5.11(b). Respondent has failed
to appear or offer any defense for her misconduct. We have disbarred other attorneys who have
demonstrated similar unfitness to be entrusted with the responsibilities of a member of the bar in
this state. See Matter of Brown, 766 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. 2002); Matter of Shumate, 647 N.E.2d
321 (Ind. 1995).
Conclusion
In light of Respondent's multiple acts of serious professional misconduct, we conclude
that Respondent must be given the strongest sanction available. We therefore disbar Respondent
Kimberly O. Powell effective immediately. The Clerk of this Court is ordered to strike her name
from the roll of attorneys.
Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a disbarred attorney under Admission and
Discipline Rule 23(26). 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).
All Justices concur.
5