FOR THE RESPONDENT FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
Duge Butler, Jr. Donald R. Lundberg, Executive
Secretary
400 Barrister Building Robert C. Shook, Staff Attorney
155 E. Market St. 115 West Washington Street,Ste.1060
Indianapolis, IN 46204 Indianapolis, IN 46204
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF )
) Case No. 49S00-9904-DI-225
SCOTT R. JONES )
_____________________________________________________________________
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
_____________________________________________________________________
May 1, 2000
Per Curiam
Today we find that the respondent’s repeated convictions of operating
a motor vehicle while intoxicated violate the Rules of Professional Conduct
for Attorneys at Law. Because of his misconduct, we find further that he
should be suspended from the practice of law, but that his suspension
should be stayed provided he undergo successful treatment and monitoring of
his addiction.
This matter comes before us upon the respondent and the
Disciplinary Commission’s Statement of Circumstances and Conditional
Agreement for Discipline, wherein they agree that the respondent engaged in
misconduct and that a conditionally stayed suspension from the practice of
law is the appropriate discipline. That agreement is now before us for
final approval.
The parties agree that on March 17, 1983, March 6, 1987, and October
6, 1992, the respondent was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated. On August 12, 1998, he pleaded guilty to operating a motor
vehicle while intoxicated, a class D felony. Judgment of conviction for
that offense was ordered withheld until August 13, 2001, on the condition
that he be placed on probation for a period of three years, beginning
August 12, 1998.
Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) provides that it is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to engage in a criminal act which reflects
adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer
in other respects. We have held that a lawyer’s three convictions of OWI
violated the rule because such a pattern of misconduct revealed a general
indifference to legal standards of conduct and implicated the lawyer’s
fitness as one who could be trusted to keep his client’s secrets, give
effective legal advice, and fulfill his obligations to the courts. Matter
of Martenet, 674 N.E.2d 549, 550 (Ind. 1996). The respondent’s conduct,
being essentially identical, also violates Ind.Professional Conduct Rule
8.4(b).
The respondent and the Commission agree that the respondent should be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, with that
suspension suspended to probation concurrent with his period of criminal
probation, conditional upon the respondent’s completion of various
aftercare provisions. In support of the respondent’s candidacy for such
probationary terms, the parties have submitted as mitigating factors
various testimonials from health care professionals, mental health
professionals, and representatives of several professional assistance
groups. The statements contained therein generally indicate that the
respondent is undergoing psychotherapy and group therapy, medical treatment
for his alcohol dependency, that he regularly attends Alcoholics Anonymous
meetings, and that his prospects for successfully controlling his addiction
are bright. Similarly, the respondent’s criminal probation officer
reported that the respondent to date has complied fully with the terms of
his probation. These endorsements lead us to conclude that the respondent
has voluntarily taken steps to deal with his alcohol dependency, that he is
making a significant personal investment in his recovery, and therefore
that probationary status is an adequate means by which to address his
misconduct. We are further persuaded of the appropriateness of probation
in this case because similar discipline has been imposed for almost
identical misconduct. See Matter of Martenet, supra (six months
suspension, suspended to 12 months period of probation contingent on
completion of various alcohol dependency aftercare programs), reinstated at
694 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind. 1998). Accordingly, we approve the parties
Conditional Agreement and the discipline described therein.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondent, Scott R. Jones, is
suspended from the practice of law in this state for a period of six (6)
months, effective immediately. That period of suspension is hereby
conditionally stayed, and the respondent shall be subject to a period of
probation until August 13, 2001. The specific terms of the period of
probation include:
1. The respondent shall not violate any terms of his criminal
probation under cause number 06D02-9705-DF-217 in Boone Superior Court
No. 2.
2. The respondent shall remain free from the use of alcohol or
other intoxicating or addicting substances or other drugs not
prescribed for medically therapeutic purposes.
3. The respondent shall submit to supervision by a monitor
selected through mutual agreement of the respondent, his counsel, and
the executive secretary of the Disciplinary Commission. The monitor
shall supervise the monitored lawyer’s compliance with the terms of
probation and will report to the Disciplinary Commission regarding the
respondent’s compliance with these terms.
4. The monitor shall report quarterly to the Disciplinary
Commission with regard to the respondent’s compliance. The monitor
shall submit a final report to the Disciplinary Commission upon
completion of the probationary or monitoring period. The monitor
shall immediately report to the Disciplinary Commission any non-
compliance by the respondent with respect to the terms of probation.
Copies of all reports shall be provided to the respondent and his
counsel.
5. During the period of probation, the respondent shall
participate at least three times weekly, but with as much additional
frequency as the respondent’s medical providers recommend, in meetings
of Alcoholics Anonymous or other appropriate twelve-step program
specifically authorized and approved by the executive secretary of the
Disciplinary Commission. The respondent shall submit a written
quarterly report to his monitor in which he verifies under oath his
compliance with this provision or sets forth under oath any instances
of failure to comply with this provision and a detailed explanation of
such non-compliance. The respondent shall submit to this monitor the
name of an individual who can personally vouch for his attendance at
the meetings described above, or alternatively, submit written proof
of meeting attendance acknowledged by the initials of another
individual in attendance at the meeting.
6. The respondent shall meet with his monitor at least monthly.
Such meetings shall be in person at such place and time determined by
the monitor.
7. The respondent shall be subject to random alcohol/drug
screens at the frequency determined by the monitor, to include
arriving at the designated screening site within six hours of
notification.
8. The respondent shall execute a “Consent for the Release of
Confidential Information” on a form provided by the Disciplinary
Commission. The respondent further agrees to waive all assertions of
confidentiality or privilege associated with monitor or treating
health care providers.
9. At the conclusion of the probationary period, all consents
for the release of information and to the waiver of assertions of
confidentiality or privilege shall be revoked.
10. The respondent shall not violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct during his period of probation.
11. The respondent shall immediately report in writing to the
Disciplinary Commission any failure to comply with any of the terms of
his probation and specifically identify the type and circumstances of
his violation.
12. The respondent shall pay all costs of compliance with the
terms of his probation.
13. The burden of compliance with the terms of probation
remains with the respondent at all times and does not shift to the
Disciplinary Commission, or its staff, the respondent’s monitor, the
respondent’s therapist or any other person or entity.
14. If, during the respondent’s period of probation, the
Disciplinary Commission should have reasonable cause to believe that
the respondent is in material breach of any of the terms or conditions
of his probation, the executive secretary may petition the Supreme
Court for relief from the conditionally stayed period of suspension.
If the respondent successfully completes his probation without
violation of any term of probation and upon the positive recommendation of
his monitor, the respondent shall be automatically fully reinstated to the
practice of law, subject to the payment of costs of this proceeding. If
the respondent violates any terms of his probation, he shall be suspended
for the full six (6) month period which was originally stayed and he shall
be required to undergo the reinstatement process pursuant to Ind.Admission
and Discipline Rule 23, Section 4.
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.