Indiana Supreme Court, 2018

In re Smith

Indiana Supreme Court · Decided August 10, 2018

103 N.E.3d 632 (North Eastern Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Published Order Approving Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline, Pursuant 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 as summarized below., Stipulated Facts: In August 2017, pursuant to a guilty plea, Respondent was convicted in Johnson County of felony and misdemeanor counts of operating a vehicle while intoxicated ("OWI"). Respondent has a prior conviction for OWI in Marion County and was on probation at the time of her arrest in Johnson County., For Respondent's professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law for a period of 90 days, beginning on the date of this order, all stayed subject to completion of at least one year of probation under a JLAP monitoring agreement . The Court incorporates by reference the terms and conditions of probation set forth in the parties' Conditional Agreement, which include among other things:

Opinion of the Court

(2) Respondent shall commit no violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct or commit any criminal act during her probation.

(3) Respondent shall comply with her existing course of treatment and with her criminal probation in Johnson County.

(4) At the conclusion of her probationary period, Respondent shall submit an affidavit of compliance to this Court.

(5) If Respondent violates the terms of her probation, the stay of her suspension *633shall be vacated and the balance of the stayed suspension shall be actively served without automatic reinstatement.

Notwithstanding the expiration of the minimum term of probation set forth above, Respondent's probation shall remain in effect until it is terminated pursuant to a petition to terminate probation filed under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(16).

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. With the acceptance of this agreement, the hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged.

All Justices concur, except Rush, C.J., who would reject the conditional agreement, believing that a period of active suspension and a longer term of probation are warranted given the endangerment involved in both criminal cases.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.