|FOR THE RESPONDENT |FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT |
| |DISCIPINARY COMMISSION |
| | |
|No appearance |Donald R. Lundberg, Executive |
| |Secretary |
| |Seth T. Pruden, Staff Attorney |
| |115 West Washington Street, Suite 1165|
| |Indianapolis, IN 46204 |
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF )
) CASE NO. 45S00-0009-DI-558
KENNETH W. DAVIDSON )
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
January 30, 2002
Per Curiam
Today we find that lawyer Kenneth Davidson’s repeated criminal acts,
coupled with the abandonment of his law practice without regard for the
interests of his clients, warrants his permanent disbarment from the
practice of law.
The Commission instituted this attorney disciplinary action with the
filing of a three-count verified complaint for disciplinary action. A
hearing officer appointed by this Court heard evidence on the compliant at
a hearing that the respondent failed to attend. This case is now before us
for final resolution upon the hearing officer’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Where neither the Commission nor the respondent
petitions this Court for review of those findings, as they are permitted to
do under Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(15), we adopt the hearing
officer’s factual findings while reserving final judgment as to misconduct
and sanction. Matter of Campbell, 702 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. 1998).
The respondent was admitted to the Bar of this state in 1990.
Under Count I, we now find that on September 15, 1995, the respondent
stopped his vehicle in Hammond, Indiana to tell two policemen that he had
been in an accident with another driver. The officers, suspecting the
respondent was intoxicated, attempted an arrest. The respondent physically
assaulted the officers, refused to be handcuffed, threatened to spit on
them, shoved them against their car, and attempted to get back into his
vehicle. The respondent also threatened to shoot the officers and claimed
to have influence over the police department by virtue of his friendship
with a particular judge. The officers handcuffed the respondent and
transported him to jail.
By September 21, 1995, the respondent had been charged with public
intoxication, resisting law enforcement, intimidation, battery on a police
officer, and possession of paraphernalia, all misdemeanors. The
respondent failed to appear at his initial hearing, resulting in a bench
warrant being issued. He surrendered to the court a month later and the
warrant was recalled. He failed to appear at his guilty plea hearing on
April 30, 1996, resulting in the issuance of another arrest warrant. The
respondent surrendered two months later, the warrant was recalled, and the
respondent entered a plea agreement on May 30, 1997. He failed to abide by
the agreed terms of the plea, prompting the court to issue an order to
appear, which the respondent failed to obey. A third arrest warrant was
issued. On March 24, 2000, the respondent was arrested in Porter County
and charged with driving with a suspended license, a class A misdemeanor.
Police arrested him again on an identical charge on July 16, 2000. He
ultimately pled guilty to both charges.
We find that the respondent committed criminal acts which reflect
adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as an attorney in
other respects, in violation of Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b).[1]
By failing to appear in court on three different occasions in his own
criminal prosecutions, the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d). By stating
that he wielded influence over the Hammond Police Department due to his
friendship with a judge, the respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(e) by
stating an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official.
Under Count II, we now find that on September 7, 1995, the judge of
the Porter Superior Court ordered the respondent and his client to appear
on October 3, 1995 for a sentencing hearing. The respondent failed to
appear on October 3. The client reported that she had been unable to
contact the respondent prior to the hearing. The respondent’s office
telephone had been disconnected and his home phone number changed to an
unpublished number.
By failing to appear at his client’s sentencing hearing, the
respondent did not act with reasonable diligence and promptness during his
representation of the client, in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3. By failing
to respond to her reasonable requests for information regarding her case or
to keep her reasonably informed about the status of her case, he violated
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a).
Pursuant to Count III, we find that a client hired the respondent in
November 1992 to represent her in two civil suits, paying the respondent a
retainer of $700. The respondent thereafter closed his law practice
without notifying the client and without taking any action on her behalf.
We find that his actions under Count III violate Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and
1.4(a). Further, by failing to refund the client’s retainer, the
respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d), which requires lawyers, to the
extent reasonably practicable, to protect a client’s interests upon
termination of representation.
In aggravation of the respondent’s acts, the hearing officer found
that Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicle records reveal that between 1992 and
2000, the BMV sent to the respondent 15 notices that his license was
suspended. Those records further indicate that the respondent failed to
appear for his own court hearings in traffic cases at least five times
between 1987 and 1993.
The respondent’s serious and persistent criminal behavior and his
sudden abandonment of his law practice without regard to his clients
clearly demonstrates that he is unfit to continue to serve as an officer of
this Court. This determination is consistent with that found in cases of
similar attorney misconduct. Matter of DeArmond, 620 N.E.2d 698 (Ind.
1993) (disbarment for improper withdrawal of representation, misdemeanor
battery of estranged spouse, and felony battery of mother); Matter of
Moody, 428 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 1981) (disregard of the laws of the state,
court procedures and judicial officers leading to client injury and
impediment of the administration of justice warrants disbarment).
Accordingly, we find that the respondent, Kenneth W. Davidson, should be
disbarred. The Clerk is directed to strike his name from the Roll of
Attorneys.
The Clerk of this Court is further directed to provide notice
of this order in accordance with Admis.Disc.R. 23(3)(d) and to provide the
clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the
clerk of each of the United States District Courts in this state, and the
clerks of the United States Bankruptcy Courts in this state with the last
known address of respondent as reflected in the records of the Clerk.
Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent.
-----------------------
[1] See, e.g., Matter of McClure, 652 N.E.2d 863 (Ind. 1995) (offenses
involving violence represent conduct that indicates a lack of
characteristics relevant to the practice of law); Matter of Martenet, 674
N.E.2d 549 (Ind. 1996) (general indifference to legal standards of conduct
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b)).