FOR THE RESPONDENT FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
Steven John Moerlein, pro se. Donald R. Lundberg, Executive
Secretary
Charles M. Kidd, Staff Attorney
115 West Washington Street, Ste. 1060
Indianapolis, IN 46204
______________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF )
) Case No. 71S00-9901-DI-56
STEVEN JOHN MOERLEIN )
____________________________________________________________________
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
_____________________________________________________________________
June 13, 2000
Per Curiam
Steven John Moerlein, the respondent in this attorney disciplinary
matter, admits that, after agreeing to pursue a claim on behalf of a
client, he thereafter failed to ever file suit or attempt to obtain any
relief for his client. Later, after the client filed a grievance with the
Disciplinary Commission, the respondent failed to respond to the
Commission’s demand for information.
This case now comes before us upon the respondent’s and the
Commission’s Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for
Discipline, entered pursuant to Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule
23(11)(c). That agreement, which provides that the respondent is to be
publicly reprimanded for his misconduct, is now before us for final
approval. The respondent’s admission to the bar of this state in 1981
confers our disciplinary jurisdiction here.
The parties agree that in December 1994, a client met with the
respondent in his office to discuss pursuing a claim against a utility
company that she alleged had damaged her septic tank and basement wall
while digging a trench in her yard. The client provided the respondent
with photographs, bills, and other items related to her claim. Although
the client never spoke directly with the respondent again after their
meeting, she was kept abreast of the status of the case each time she
called the respondent’s office for an update. The respondent never filed
suit or obtained a settlement in regard to the contemplated claim. On May
1, 1997, the client filed a grievance against the respondent with the
Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. Despite receiving notice of
the grievance, the respondent failed to submit a response, as required by
Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(a)(2).
Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.3 provides that a lawyer, while
representing a client, shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness.
By failing to take meaningful action on his client’s contemplated claim
after being hired to do so, the respondent violated the rule. Professional
Conduct Rule 8.1(b) provides that a lawyer, in connection with a
disciplinary matter, shall not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand
for information from a disciplinary authority. By failing to respond to
the Commission’s demand for response to the client’s grievance, the
respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b).
The parties have agreed that the respondent should be publicly
reprimanded for his misconduct. When assessing the adequacy of a proposed
sanction, we examine the nature of the misconduct and any mitigating or
aggravating factors. We also examine the facts surrounding the misconduct,
the respondent’s state of mind, duties that were violated, the actual or
potential injury to the client, and the risk to the public. Matter of
Drozda, 653 N.E.2d 991 (Ind. 1995). In mitigation, the parties note that
in order to provide greater control over his caseload and to provide better
client service, the respondent has closed his law office in Knox, Indiana,
reduced the caseload he maintains in his South Bend office, and implemented
a computer-assisted case management system.
The respondent’s misconduct is aggravated by the fact that he has
been disciplined by this Court for unrelated misconduct. Matter of
Moerlein, 520 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. 1988) (public reprimand for engaging in
conflict of interest while serving as prosecuting attorney and for
revealing client confidences).
In light of the aforementioned factors, we are persuaded that the
proposed public admonition is appropriate under the circumstances of this
case, given the respondent’s failure to provide any meaningful action to
his client during the representation and his subsequent disregard for the
Commission’s authority. Once retained, a lawyer has a duty to carry
through to conclusion all matters related to the representation unless the
lawyer withdraws. ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility,
Informal Op. 86-1520 (1986), Matter of Cawley, 678 N.E.2d 1112 (Ind. 1997)
(public reprimand where lawyer failed to pursue action to conclusion after
initial filing of complaint and attempt at mediation).
It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent, Steven John Moerlein,
is hereby reprimanded and admonished for the misconduct set forth above.
The Clerk of this Court is 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 Federal District Courts in this state, and the clerk of the United
States Bankruptcy Court 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 respondent.