|FOR THE RESPONDENT |FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT |
| |DISCIPINARY COMMISSION |
| | |
|Pro se. |Donald R. Lundberg, Executive |
| |Secretary |
| |Robert C. Shook, Staff Attorney |
| |115 West Washington Street, Suite 1060|
| |Indianapolis, IN 46204 |
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF )
) CASE NO. 49S00-9805-DI-281
JORGE L. RODRIGUEZ )
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
August 30, 2001
Per Curiam
Because the respondent failed on his Indiana Bar application to
disclose attendance at two colleges, his academic dismissal from both, and
a semester suspension from one, he will be suspended from the practice of
law for 90 days.
This attorney disciplinary action comes before this Court now upon
the respondent’s and the Disciplinary Commission’s Statement of
Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline, entered pursuant to
Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11)(c). In that agreement, the
respondent admits to misconduct and agrees to be suspended for 90 days.
The agreement is now before this Court for final approval. The
respondent’s admission to this state’s bar in 1992 confers upon this Court
disciplinary jurisdiction in this matter.
This is the second time this particular conditional agreement has
been submitted to us for approval. Upon its first submission, we returned
it to the parties for further information regarding the circumstances
regarding the respondent’s admitted 1980 suspension from the University of
Miami. In response, the respondent tendered the requested information to
augment the conditional agreement, along with a Memorandum in Support of
Nondisclosure, in which the respondent argued that the acts underlying that
suspension formed the basis for criminal charges as well as violations of
school policy. Since the criminal records were later “released,” then
“expunged,” the respondent argues that he should not be required to
disclose the records to this Court. We disagree. The respondent opened
his past for inspection through his purely voluntary act of seeking Indiana
Bar admission. Accordingly, we deny his request for nondisclosure, and
have arrived at our decision on the tendered conditional agreement with the
benefit of the information describing the incident underlying his 1980
suspension from the University of Miami.
The parties agree that on April 19, 1991, the respondent submitted
his Application for Admission Upon Examination to Practice Law to the
Indiana State Board of Law Examiners. Paragraph 10 of the application
asked the respondent to list colleges and universities he had attended.
Although the respondent disclosed that he had attended the University of
Florida for his undergraduate and masters’ degrees, and Ohio Northern
University for his law degree, he failed to disclose that he attended the
University of Miami from 1979 to 1983 and the Nova University College of
Law from 1986 to 1987.
Paragraph twelve of the application stated:
The following is a complete report as to every incident in which I
have ever been disciplined, expelled or suspended from any college,
university or law school or other professional school or profession
(to include academic suspension or probation) or have been removed
from appointive or elected public office for cause:
In response, the respondent stated, “None.” In fact, the respondent was
suspended from the University of Miami in 1980. He was academically
dismissed from the University of Miami in 1983. He was academically
dismissed from Nova University College of Law in 1987. In 1993, the
respondent offered to the Board of Law Examiners to correct the omissions
on his application.
Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.1 provides:
An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection
with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary
matter, shall not:
a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or
b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension
known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail
to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or
disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require
disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
By failing to disclose his attendance at the University of Miami and
Nova law school, his suspension from the University of Miami, and his
academic dismissals from the University of Miami and Nova law school, the
respondent violated Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 8.1.
This Court’s discipline imposed for faulty disclosure on bar
applications has varied, depending on the circumstances and any mitigating
or aggravating factors. In Matter of Redding, 672 N.E.2d 76 (Ind. 1996),
this Court suspended an attorney for 90 days pursuant to a conditional
agreement where the attorney failed to disclose on her bar application a
lawsuit in which she was a named defendant. This Court also found that the
attorney misled the court while testifying in that suit. Because of
mitigating factors, including the respondent’s “relative youth and
inexperience” at the time of the misconduct and her clinical depression,
this Court accepted the 90 day suspension.
In Matter of Lucas, 672 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. 1996), an attorney failed to
disclose on both Indiana and Florida Bar admission applications three
lawsuits in which he was a named defendant, a speeding ticket, an arrest
for public intoxication, and various delinquent credit card accounts.
Pursuant to a conditional agreement, this Court accepted the agreed
discipline of public reprimand, in large part because of the parties’
stipulation that the respondent’s application omissions were the result of
his “fail[ing] to take sufficient care and time in completing [the
applications] to reflect on the questions and consider their import . . .”
rather than the product of a conscious objective to deceive admissions
authorities. Lucas, 672 N.E.2d at 936.
This Court disbarred an attorney in Matter of Verma, 691 N.E.2d 1211
(Ind. 1998), upon finding that the attorney deliberately falsified bar
application responses on Pennsylania and Maryland questionnaires. His
deceit was pervasive and included the forgery of certain documents to
support his false claims. That attorney, who failed to appear at hearing,
had been previously disciplined by this Court for falsifying an application
for federal employment. Due to the sheer gravity and breadth of his
deceptions, this Court imposed disbarment.
The present case presents misconduct more akin to that in Redding and
Lucas in that it is mitigated by the respondent’s acknowledgement of his
wrongdoing and his subsequent efforts with the Board of Law Examiners to
correct the errors. In light of that, along with the fact that the
discipline is the product of an agreed resolution, we find that it should
be approved, but wish to make clear that 90 days is the minimum discipline
this Court would accept for the respondent’s misconduct.
It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent, Jorge L. Rodriguez, be
suspended from the practice of law in this state for ninety (90) days,
beginning October 5, 2001, at the conclusion of which he shall be
automatically reinstated.
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.