IN THE MATTER OF: TENNEIL E. SELNER, Respondent
Attorney Discipline Action.
Tenneil E. Selner, RESPONDENT, Pro se, South Bend, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION: G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary, Angie L. Ordway, Staff Attorney, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Rush, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur. Dickson, J., dissents, and would reject the Conditional Agreement.
We find that Respondent, Tenneil Selner, engaged in attorney misconduct by unlawfully distributing pseudoephedrine. For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be suspended from the practice of law in this state for at least three years without automatic reinstatement.
Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11), the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a " Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline" stipulating agreed facts and proposed discipline. The Respondent's 2006 admission to this state's bar subjects her to this Court's disciplinary jurisdiction. See Ind. Const. art. 7, § 4. The Court approves the agreement and proposed discipline.
On September 12, 2012, Respondent was indicted in federal court on three counts involving the manufacture of methamphetamine. On October 4, 2013, Respondent pled guilty to one count of unlawful distribution of pseudoephedrine and the other two counts were dismissed. In her factual basis, Respondent admitted purchasing pseudoephedrine four times at different drug stores and then providing the pseudoephedrine to two other individuals, allowing those individuals to evade the identification statutes governing the purchase of pseudoephedrine. Respondent was sentenced to twenty-one months of imprisonment and two years of subsequent probation.
The parties agree that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) by committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
The parties cite no facts in aggravation. In mitigation, the parties cite Respondent's cooperation with the disciplinary process and her successful completion of a treatment program for methamphetamine addiction.
Discussion and Discipline
Our analysis of appropriate discipline entails consideration of the nature of the misconduct, the duties violated by the respondent, any resulting or potential harm, the respondent's state of mind, our duty to preserve the integrity of the profession, the risk to the public should we allow the respondent to continue in practice, and matters in mitigation and aggravation. See Matter of Newman, 958 N.E.2d 792, 800 (Ind. 2011).
Respondent's federal felony conviction, and the factual basis she provided for her guilty plea, point to her knowing assistance in the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. These are not merely the acts of an end user. Respondent actively engaged herself in the introduction of a controlled substance into a marketplace occupied by current and future victims of a ...