In the Matter of: Beau J. White, Respondent.
Discipline Action Hearing Officer R. Scott Hayes
Appearance for the Respondent
Attorneys for the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary
Commission G. Michael Witte, Executive Director Julie E.
Bennett, Staff Attorney Indianapolis, Indiana
that Respondent, Beau White, committed attorney misconduct in
connection with his representation of a client and by failing
to cooperate with the disciplinary process. For this
misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be suspended
for at least three years without automatic reinstatement.
matter is before the Court on the report of the hearing
officer appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the
Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission's
"Verified Disciplinary Complaint." Respondent's
1999 admission to this state's bar subjects him to this
Court's disciplinary jurisdiction. See Ind.
Const. art. 7, § 4.
Background and Facts
Commission filed a "Verified Disciplinary
Complaint" against Respondent on March 8, 2017.
Respondent was served with the complaint but has not
appeared, responded, or otherwise participated in these
proceedings. Accordingly, the Commission filed a "Motion
for Judgment on the Complaint, " and the hearing officer
took the facts alleged in the disciplinary complaint as true.
petition for review of the hearing officer's report has
been filed. When neither party challenges the findings of the
hearing officer, "we accept and adopt those findings but
reserve final judgment as to misconduct and sanction."
Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 1257, 1258 (Ind. 2000).
1. Respondent was hired to represent "Client
1" in a criminal case. Thereafter, Respondent did very
little work on the case, was unable to be reached by Client 1
until immediately prior to trial, and appeared on the morning
of trial with very little material. Client 1 indicated to the
judge she was not comfortable proceeding with Respondent and
explained why. The judge continued the matter even though a
jury panel was waiting outside the courtroom. The judge also
filed a request for investigation of Respondent with the
Commission. Respondent failed to timely respond to the
Commission's inquiries during that investigation, leading
to the initiation of show cause proceedings.
2. Respondent was hired to represent "Client
2" with respect to paternity and child support issues.
Client 2 was unable to reach Respondent after the retainer
was paid. Eventually, Client 2 filed a request for
investigation of Respondent with the Commission. Respondent
failed to timely respond to the Commission's inquiries,
leading to the initiation of additional show cause
hearing officer cited as aggravating factors Respondent's
disciplinary history and his substantial experience in the
practice of law, found no evidence in mitigation, and
recommended that Respondent be suspended without automatic
concur in the hearing officer's findings of fact and
conclude that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional