|Attorney for the Respondent |Attorney for the Indiana Supreme Court|
|Kevin McGoff, |Disciplinary Commission |
|Indianapolis, Indiana |Donald R. Lundberg, Executive |
| |Secretary |
| |Dennis McKinney, Staff Attorney |
| |Indianapolis, Indiana |
In the
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 49S00-0304-CO-168
In The Matter Of
the Contempt of the
Supreme Court of Indiana
Travis Raymond Fox,
Respondent.
________________________________
Contempt of Court
Original Action
________________________________
October 9, 2003
Per Curiam.
The Disciplinary Commission alleged that attorney Travis Raymond Fox
continued to represent criminal defendants after being suspended from the
practice of law for failing to pay his attorney registration and education
fees. Respondent Fox and the Commission have tendered for our approval an
agreed resolution of this matter, which we accept today, thereby finding
the respondent to be in contempt of this Court.
Procedure
On April 23, 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission
filed a Verified Information and Motion for Order to Show Cause Why
Respondent Should Not Be Held In Contempt of Court. Pursuant to that
motion, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause on May 23, 2003, therein
directing the respondent to show cause in writing within twenty (20) days
of service of the order why he should not be found in contempt of this
Court. On June 20, 2003, this Court granted the respondent’s request for
an extension of time to respond to this Court’s show cause order. On June
26, 2003, the parties notified this Court that they were negotiating an
agreed resolution of the Commission’s allegations of contempt. The
parties thereafter submitted their proposed agreed resolution to this Court
for approval.
Facts
The respondent was admitted to the bar of this state in 1998. The
parties agree that for the year 2001-02, the respondent failed to pay his
annual attorney registration and education fees, or to file an exemption
affidavit. See Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(21) (establishing $90
annual registration fee for attorneys); Admis.Disc.R. 29(7) (establishing
$15 annual education fee for attorneys). This Court issued an order on
April 15, 2002 suspending the respondent from the practice of law for his
failure to pay the fees, effective 11:59 pm on May 12, 2002. See
Admis.Disc.R. 23(21)(e) (providing that failure to pay the registration fee
shall subject the attorney to an order of suspension from the practice of
law in this state). The respondent does not dispute that he twice
received notice that the fees were delinquent prior to the order of
suspension.
At all times relevant to this proceeding, the respondent was employed
by the Marion County Public Defender Agency as a conflict attorney in major
felony court. In that position, the respondent represented more than 15
criminal defendants in Marion County courts after the effective date of his
suspension and prior to his reinstatement to the bar on November 19, 2002.
For example, in August 2002, the respondent appeared at a sentencing
hearing in the Marion Superior Court on behalf of a criminal defendant.
On November 18, 2002, the Commission notified the respondent that it
intended to file contempt charges against him for his practicing law while
he was suspended. The next day, the respondent paid his delinquent
registration and education fees and was reinstated to the bar.
An attorney who fails to pay a registration fee shall be subject to an
order of suspension from the practice of law in this state and shall be
subject to sanctions for contempt of this Court in the event he thereafter
engages in the practice of law in this state. Admis.Disc.R. 23(21)(e). See
also Matter of Crumpacker, 431 N.E.2d 91, 97 (Ind. 1982); Matter of Baars,
683 N.E.2d 555 (Ind. 1997) (willful and intentional disobedience of the
orders of a court can constitute indirect criminal contempt). We find
the respondent guilty of indirect criminal contempt of this Court by
practicing law after being suspended from the bar for failure to pay his
attorney registration and education fees.
III. Sanction
This Court has inherent and statutory authority to punish contempt by
fine and imprisonment. Id., I.C. 33-2-1-4.
In aggravation of the respondent’s misconduct, the respondent and the
Commission agree that the respondent was also suspended from April 17
through May 7, 2001 for his failure timely to pay his annual registration
and education fee for the year 2000-01.
In mitigation, the parties agree that the respondent has never been
disciplined by this Court for a violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, that he was cooperative with the Commission throughout these
proceedings, and that he is a young lawyer who does not have the financial
ability to pay a substantial fine. In light of these considerations, they
agree that the appropriate sanction is a fine of $500. In addition, the
respondent has offered to perform 30 hours of pro bono service through the
Heartland Pro Bono Council within six months of entry of this order.
In prior proceedings, this Court has imposed much larger fines or even
terms of incarceration where attorneys were found to be in contempt for
practicing law while suspended. See, e.g., Matter of Baars, 683 N.E.2d 555
(Ind. 1997) (attorney found to be in contempt for practicing law after
being suspended for attorney misconduct; ordered incarcerated for 30 days
and fined $200); Matter of Lowry, 49S00-0105-CO-244 (Ind. 2001), (attorney
fined $2,500 for continuing to practice law after suspension for
noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements). In the
absence of significant extenuating factors or other special circumstances,
that level of discipline is generally appropriate where a suspended
attorney practices law in defiance of an order of this Court. In this
case, we are willing to accept the parties’ tendered agreement in light of
the recitation that the respondent is not able to pay a larger fine, the
mitigating factors presented, and the fact that the respondent will provide
pro bono service to needy clients to atone for his misconduct.
It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent, Travis Raymond Fox, is
hereby ordered to pay to the Clerk of this Court, on or before November 14,
2003, $500 (five hundred dollars) for his contempt of this Court. The
respondent is also directed to pay the costs of this proceeding.
All Justices concur.