In the Matter of Glenn E. Davis, Jr. Respondent.
Discipline Action Hearing Officer James W. Riley, Jr.
APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENT
ATTORNEYS FOR INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
G. Michael Witte, Executive Director Angie L. Ordway, Staff
Attorney Indianapolis, Indiana
that Respondent, Glenn E. Davis, Jr., committed attorney
misconduct by neglecting a client's case and by failing
to cooperate with the disciplinary process. For this
misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be suspended
for at least one year without automatic reinstatement.
matter is now before us 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 1976 admission to
this state's bar subjects him to this Court's
disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST, art. 7,
Background and Facts
Commission filed a "Disciplinary Complaint" against
Respondent on February 15, 2018. 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).
2013, Respondent was hired by "Client," an elderly
woman, to pursue claims for damages she sustained in a fall
while she was a patient at a rehabilitation facility.
Client's "Daughter" assisted Client in
communicating with Respondent.
timely filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint in June
2014. However, Respondent never filed the requisite
submission of evidence to the medical review panel. This
occurred notwithstanding multiple extensions of time and
numerous outreach attempts by the panel chair and opposing
counsel, several attempts by Daughter to discuss the case
with Respondent, and multiple promises by Respondent to
Daughter that the submission would be filed. As a result of
Respondent's failure to submit evidence to the panel, the
defendant filed a motion to dismiss in December 2016, and a
hearing was scheduled for January 17, 2017. Respondent failed
to notify Client of the motion to dismiss or the hearing, and
he failed to appear at that hearing. After the hearing, the
trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Thereafter,
Respondent did not inform Client or Daughter of the dismissal
and did not respond to Daughter's multiple attempts to
communicate with Respondent.
filed a grievance with the Commission. Respondent did not
timely respond to the Commission's demand for a response
to the grievance, and his belated response was misleading in
several respects. Respondent later failed to comply with a
subpoena duces tecum for Client's file. To date,
Respondent has not cured his noncooperation with the subpoena
duces tecum, and as a result he currently is indefinitely
suspended from the practice of law. See Matter of
Davis, 90 N.E.3d 1189 (Ind. 2018).
concur in the hearing officer's findings of fact and
conclude that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional