In the Matter of Stephen W. Schuyler Respondent.
RESPONDENT PRO SE Stephen W. Schuyler Pendleton, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
G. Michael Witte, Executive Director David E. Griffith, Staff
Attorney Indianapolis, Indiana
that Respondent, Stephen Schuyler, engaged in attorney
misconduct by stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from
six supervised estates, failing to comply with court orders,
and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary process. For
this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be
to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(12.1)(b), 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.
Respondent's 1982 admission to this state's bar
subjects him to this Court's disciplinary jurisdiction.
See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. The Court approves
the agreement and proposed discipline.
currently is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law
due to his noncooperation with the Commission's
investigation into the conduct described below. Matter of
Schuyler, 54 N.E.3d 344 (Ind. 2016). Respondent also
currently is under an interim suspension due to his felony
conviction arising from the conduct described below.
Matter of Schuyler, 82 N.E.3d 878 (Ind. 2017).
served as either the personal representative, or counsel for
the personal representative, in six supervised estates opened
for probate in Madison County. Over the course of several
years, Respondent stole at least $550, 000 from the six
estates. As a result, Respondent was criminally charged with
fifteen felony counts: (1) eight counts of theft as Class C,
Class D, or Level 6 felonies; (2) five counts of check
deception as Level 5 or Level 6 felonies; and (3) two counts
of corrupt business influence as Class C or Level 5 felonies.
Respondent pled guilty as charged and, in June 2017,
Respondent was sentenced in accordance with the plea
agreement to concurrent terms of incarceration totaling eight
years and ordered to pay restitution.
estate case that prompted the initial disciplinary grievance
filed with the Commission, Respondent failed to comply with
court orders for accounting and to distribute assets, and he
failed to appear at multiple hearings despite being ordered
to do so, resulting in the issuance of a bench warrant for
Respondent's arrest. After this warrant was issued,
Respondent tendered a check to the sole residual beneficiary
of the estate in the amount ordered by the court to be
distributed, but the check was dishonored due to insufficient
funds. The court set the matter for another hearing, which
Respondent again failed to attend. The court then removed
Respondent as the estate's administrator and appointed a
successor administrator. An accounting done by the successor
administrator revealed that Respondent had made unauthorized
payments from the estate to himself totaling approximately
parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana
Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following
3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying a court order.
8.1(b): Knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for
information from a disciplinary authority.
8.4(b): Committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on
the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or ...