Indiana Supreme Court, 2019

In re Tempel

Indiana Supreme Court · Decided September 6, 2019

130 N.E.3d 94 (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 September 2018, pursuant to a guilty plea, Respondent was convicted in Marion County of two misdemeanor counts of operating a vehicle while intoxicated ("OWI"). Respondent has a prior conviction for OWI in Boone County., Respondent has no prior discipline and has voluntarily taken several measures since his arrest in Marion County to respond to his misconduct, including entering into a long-term monitoring agreement with JLAP. Respondent's criminal probation and JLAP monitoring agreement include among other things the use of a SoberLink device for real-time alcohol monitoring., 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 his probation.

(3) Respondent shall pay all costs of compliance associated with the terms of probation.

(4) If Respondent violates the terms of his probation, the stay of his suspension may be vacated and the balance of his stayed suspension may 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.

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 the Marion County criminal case.

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