id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-28370	Mayden, Ryan; Meiring, Adrienne L.	Survey of Indiana Law of Professional Responsibility (2022-2023)	2024	28	.pdf	application/pdf	12008	667	53	16 A. Serial Misconduct – Matter of Staples Matter of Staples (“Staples III”) marked the third disciplinary action against Respondent Staples in a ten-year period.17 In October 2018, Client met with Staples’ office manager to hire Staples to represent him in three cases (a criminal domestic battery charge, a paternity case, and a CHINS case).18 Client and Client’s mother attended the meeting and agreed to pay $11,500 with an initial $2,500 retainer fee for Staples to exclusively represent Client in the three ————————————————————————————— in matters of trust and confidence, and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an officer of the courts; and • Id. 2024] PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 955 III, and once again when he failed to comply with a subpoena duces tecum following his response in the case at hand.35 The Disciplinary Commission subsequently filed a disciplinary complaint against Respondent Staples, alleging the following violations of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.5(e): Failing to obtain a client’s approval of a fee division between lawyers who are not in the same firm; 3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules or an order of a court; 8.1(a): Knowingly making a false statement of material fact to the Disciplinary Commission in connection with a disciplinary matter; and 8.1(b): Failing to respond in a timely manner to the Commission’s demands for information.36 A hearing officer presided over an evidentiary hearing and after considering the parties’ proposed findings, the hearing officer submitted a report concluding that Respondent Staples violated all four rules charged; the hearing officer recommended an eighteen-month suspension without automatic reinstatement.37 Upon review de novo, the Indiana Supreme Court ultimately suspended Respondent Staples from the practice of law for one year without automatic reinstatement, with the additional requirement that Staples would not be eligible for reinstatement until he satisfies the judgment entered against him in Client’s mother’s refund lawsuit.38 At first blush, this sanction might seem unduly harsh, as similar misconduct on a first occurrence typically results in a public reprimand or short suspension.39	cache/inlawrev-28370.pdf	txt/inlawrev-28370.txt