|Attorney for the Respondent |Attorney for the Indiana Supreme Court|
|Pro se | |
| |Disciplinary Commission |
| |Donald R. Lundberg, Executive |
| |Secretary |
| |Robert C. Shook, Staff Attorney |
| |Indianapolis, Indiana |
In the
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 20S00-0402-DI-84
IN THE MATTER OF
PATRICK S. RYAN, Respondent.
________________________________
Disciplinary Action
________________________________
March 31, 2005
Per Curiam,
Today, we find that the respondent, Patrick S. Ryan, violated Ind.
Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(b) by operating a business that obtained
international driver’s licenses for individuals charged in the Goshen City
Court with driving license offenses, while at the same time serving as a
part-time deputy prosecutor in that court. For his misconduct, we further
find that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for nine
(9) months.
The following facts are admitted. At all relevant times respondent
was a part-time deputy prosecutor in Elkhart County assigned to the Goshen
City court. Respondent observed that many Latino motorists were being
charged in the Goshen City court with driving without licenses (a class C
misdemeanor) or without a license in possession (a class C infraction). As
a general practice, the court permitted the state to reduce the original
charge to a lesser charge or an ordinance violation, if the defendant
provided proof of obtaining a valid license.
Respondent, along with his wife, started a business venture, Legal
Licensing Limited (LLL), aimed at obtaining “international driver’s
licenses” for individuals at a cost of $275. His wife was LLL’s only
employee, with an office in the respondent’s law office. Respondent
enlisted the city court’s interpreter to recruit (for $20 each) customers
for the new business. The interpreter assisted respondent in preparing a
set of instructions and procedures for obtaining international driver’s
licenses and she helped explain LLL’s services to defendants in the Goshen
City court. The interpreter would collect a $100 initial payment from a
defendant and pass it on to respondent, often near the court. After an
international driver’s license was obtained, respondent would exchange it
with the court interpreter for the balance owed by the defendant. The
interpreter then delivered the license to the defendant. The defendant
would then present the license to respondent in court and, in return,
respondent would amend the initial charge to a lesser charge. Respondent
collected over $20,000 in fees from about 150 customer/defendants between
October 2000 and December 2001. On January 15, 2002, respondent resigned as
a deputy prosecuting attorney after meeting with the prosecutor concerning
his involvement and participation with LLL.
We find that the admitted facts clearly and convincingly establish
that respondent violated Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(b), which
prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if the representation of the
client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests. In this
case, respondent's duties as a deputy prosecutor conflicted with his
interests related to his business, LLL.
Having found professional misconduct, we must now determine the
appropriate discipline. In making this determination, we consider the
nature of the misconduct, the lawyer’s state of mind which underlies the
misconduct, actual or potential injury flowing from the misconduct, the
duty of this Court to preserve the integrity of the profession, the risk to
the public in allowing the respondent to continue in practice, and any
mitigating or aggravating factors. Matter of Lehman, 690 N.E.2d 696 (Ind.
1997). As a deputy prosecutor, respondent served a public trust to enforce
the law and the state was entitled to his undivided loyalty. Matter of
Cole, 738 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. 2000). Respondent’s conduct breeds mistrust and
lack of confidence in the judicial system. He used his position as a deputy
prosecutor to obtain a significant financial windfall for himself. By
serving both as prosecutor and as intermediary for those seeking a
favorable plea agreement, respondent gave the impression that justice could
be bought. As a public officer charged with the administration of justice,
respondent's behavior had the capacity to bolster or damage the public’s
perception of the criminal justice system. Matter of Seat, 588 N.E.2d 1262
(Ind. 1992). Unfortunately, respondent chose to follow a path that damaged
the perception of the administration of justice. By conducting a business
that impacted upon his resolution of traffic violations, respondent
violated the public’s trust. This is serious misconduct, which cannot be
ignored. Matter of Curtis, 656 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. 1995) (dual representation
of client in small claims matter and of state in criminal investigation of
client’s delinquent taxes warranted 30 day suspension); Matter of Holmes,
722 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. 2000) (two counts of official misconduct that included
permitting a personal relationship to influence duties with Attorney
General’s office warranted six month suspension without automatic
reinstatement); Matter of Hughes, 640 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. 1994) (submitting
false reimbursement claims for attending conferences and continuing legal
education seminars while serving as city court judge, resulting in felony
convictions, warranted disbarment).
Though respondent has admitted his violation, in an attachment to his
affidavit of consent to discipline he demonstrates his failure to grasp the
magnitude of his misconduct. The attachment speaks to the validity of
international driver’s licenses and the propriety of accepting them in
reaching a plea agreement with defendants in the court he served.
Respondent does not seem to recognize the inappropriateness of prosecuting
defendants and simultaneously providing a business service to them designed
to obtain a favorable result in the prosecution.
In light of the above considerations, we conclude that the respondent
should be suspended from the practice of law for nine months. It is
therefore, ordered that respondent, Patrick S. Ryan, is hereby suspended
from the practice of law for a period of not less than nine (9) months
commencing May 8, 2005, and at the conclusion of which the respondent may
petition this Court for reinstatement to the practice of law. In addition
to the requirements set forth in Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23,
Section 4, the respondent will also be required to demonstrate as a
condition of reinstatement that he understands the seriousness of his
malfeasance and that he is fit to return to the practice of law. Costs of
this proceeding are assessed against the respondent.