PUBLISHED ORDER FINDING MISCONDUCT AND IMPOSING
LORETTA H. RUSH CHIEF JUSTICE.
review of the report of the hearing officer, the Honorable
Matthew C. Kincaid, who was appointed by this Court to hear
evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary
Commission's "Verified Complaint for Disciplinary
Action," and the briefs of the parties, the Court finds
that Respondent engaged in professional misconduct and
imposes discipline on Respondent.
separate client matters, Respondent accepted retainers from
clients wishing to pursue post-conviction relief. In the
first case, Respondent never completed the review of the
record for which she had been paid, and never even requested
the record from the Court of Appeals. Respondent also did not
respond to inquiries from the client or the client's
mother regarding the status of the case and, later, their
requests for a refund of the unearned portion of the retainer
and a return of case materials they had provided to
Respondent. In the second case, after about one year of
apparent inaction, the client and a prison volunteer acting
on her behalf requested on multiple occasions that Respondent
forward the client's funds held in trust to another legal
service provider, but Respondent did not respond to those
both clients filed grievances, Respondent failed to comply
with the Commission's investigations, resulting in the
initiation of two separate noncooperation proceedings.
Respondent eventually cooperated after this Court issued show
cause orders, acknowledging in both of her responses that she
had no excuse or justification for having failed to timely
2017, Respondent was diagnosed with panic and depressive
disorders. Respondent suffered from these conditions at the
time of the events described above, but they had not yet been
diagnosed. Since her diagnosis, Respondent has been involved
with the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP)
and has been undergoing treatment and working toward
has prior discipline for similar misconduct. Matter of
Ricks, 835 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 2005).
Court finds that Respondent violated these Indiana
Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following
1.3: Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness.
1.4(a)(4): Failing to comply promptly with a client's
reasonable requests for information.
1.16(d): After the termination of representation, failing to
refund an unearned fee and to promptly return to a client
case file materials to which the client is entitled.
8.1(b): Knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for
information from a ...