| | |
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF )
) CASE NO. 49S00-0303-DI-97
ANONYMOUS )
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
May 5, 2003
Per Curiam.
The respondent attorney in this attorney disciplinary action hired an
attorney who had been suspended from the practice of law to work in her law
office, first as a bookkeeper, then as a paralegal. The suspended attorney
had been recommended to the respondent by another attorney as “a suspended
attorney looking for work.” We find today that the working arrangement was
impermissible because of the employee-attorney’s suspension.
The respondent and the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission
have submitted to this Court for approval a Statement of Circumstances and
Conditional Agreement for Discipline calling for a private reprimand for
the respondent’s actions. To make it clear that it is impermissible for
an Indiana attorney to employ a suspended or disbarred attorney to perform
work of any kind in a law office, we issue this opinion while preserving
the respondent’s anonymity.
A suspended or disbarred attorney “shall not maintain a presence or
occupy an office where the practice of law is conducted.” Ind. Admission
and Discipline Rule 23, Section 26(b) (effective February 1, 1998). An
attorney whose license to practice law has been removed is prohibited from
maintaining a presence or occupying an office where the practice of law is
conducted so the public is not misled into believing that the attorney is
still authorized to practice law. See, e.g., Matter of DeLoney, 689 N.E.2d
431 (Ind. 1997) (finding an attorney to be in contempt of this Court for
performing various duties in a law office after being disbarred).
Accordingly, the analogue to this rule is also clear, especially in light
of express provisions delineating a supervising attorney’s obligations
regarding legal assistants[1]— an attorney may not employ a suspended or
disbarred attorney in her law office. And should the suspended or disbarred
attorney’s activities go beyond mere administrative or paraprofessional
acts and constitute the practice of law, the employing attorney may well be
guilty of violation of additional provisions of the Rules of Professional
Conduct for Attorneys at Law. See, e.g., Matter of Scott, 739 N.E.2d 658
(Ind. 2000) (finding that the respondent attorney violated Ind.Professional
Conduct Rule 5.5(b), which provides that a lawyer shall not assist a person
who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that
constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, where the respondent lawyer
employed a disbarred lawyer in his law office and where the disbarred
lawyer engaged in activities which constituted the practice of law); Matter
of Jackson, 682 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. 1997) (same).
In the present case, the respondent’s employment of the suspended
attorney in her law office was impermissible. We find that the agreed
discipline, a private reprimand, is appropriate under the circumstances of
this case. Accordingly, the respondent shall be issued a private
reprimand.
-----------------------
[1] See generally Rules of Professional Conduct, Use of Legal Assistants,
Guideline 9.1 (providing, inter alia, that, “A lawyer is responsible for
all of the professional actions of a legal assistant performing legal
assistant services at the lawyer’s direction and should take reasonable
measures to insure that the legal assistant’s conduct is consistent with
the lawyer’s obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct.”).