Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Failure to Satisfy Costs in Lawyer Disciplinary Case of Krasnoff

Supreme Court of Indiana

October 30, 2014

In re Failure to Satisfy Costs in Lawyer Disciplinary Case of: Douglas L. KRASNOFF, Respondent

OPINION

PUBLISHED ORDER SUSPENDING ATTORNEY FOR FAILURE TO PAY COSTS

Loretta H. Rush, Chief Justice of Indiana.

On August 18, 2014, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission

Page 998

filed a " Petition for Suspension of Attorney for Failure to Satisfy Costs Ordered in Connection with Certain Proceedings under Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23," asserting that Respondent failed to pay costs assessed in this disciplinary action by the due date of the attorney's annual registration fee (October 1), in violation of the requirements of Indiana Admission and Discipline Rules 23(10)(f)(5) or 23(16), and Respondent is therefore subject to suspension under Admission and Discipline Rule (2)(h). Respondent has filed no response to the Commission's petition.

On October 20, 2014, this Court entered an order suspending Respondent from the practice of law in Indiana, effective on that date. The order, however, was erroneously entered in the wrong action under Cause No. 49S00-1308-DI-517. The Court has withdrawn the order entered in the wrong action and now reissues the order in the correct action under Cause No. 49S00-1208-DI-476, with no change in the effective date of suspension.

Being duly advised, the Court SUSPENDS Respondent from the practice of law in Indiana, effective October 20, 2014. Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). Respondent may file an application for reinstatement to the practice of law in this state pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 2(h), provided the requirements of that provision are met. Reinstatement will be granted only if no other suspension is in effect and Respondent is otherwise eligible for reinstatement. Applications for reinstatement or for other relief shall be filed under Cause No. 49S00-1208-DI-476.

The Court directs the Clerk to forward a copy of this Order to the parties or their counsel, and to all other entities entitled to notice under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d). Thomson Reuters is directed to publish a copy of this order in the bound volumes of this Court's decisions.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.