id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-29045	L. Meiring, Adrienne; Perry, Shiloh; Stajura, Bailey	Survey of Indiana Law of Professional Responsibility (2023-2024)	2025	18	.pdf	application/pdf	6965	328	50	In re Norrick illustrates the ethical harm that arises when a new judge fails to appreciate the responsibilities of the changed legal role.90 In Norrick, the Indiana Supreme Court approved a Conditional Agreement for Discipline between the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications and the respondent judge, imposing a forty-five-day suspension without pay on the judge for 1) failing to supervise staff in the processing of orders, which resulted in the appearance that the judge had presided over cases that he or his son was the attorney of record; 2) failing to supervise staff in the processing of criminal cases, which led to delays and the involuntary dismissal of sixteen criminal cases; and 3) issuing an ex parte change of custody order without giving the opposing party notice or an opportunity to respond.91 As the Court detailed in its per curiam opinion, the judge’s failures “began the day he assumed office, damaged the administration of justice and public trust in the judiciary,” and “caused individual harm to dozens of alleged victims, witnesses, and criminal ————————————————————————————— 86.Id. SURVEY OF INDIANA LAW OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (2023–2024) ADRIENNE L. MEIRING* SHILOH PERRY** BAILEY STAJURA*** INTRODUCTION From July 1, 2023, through July 1, 2024, the Indiana Supreme Court handed down five per curiam decisions imposing sanctions for violations of professional responsibility or judicial conduct rules.1 The three attorney discipline decisions detail one lawyer’s ethical transgressions involving widespread neglect, abandonment, and malfeasance of vulnerable clients;2 another lawyer’s misconduct in improperly questioning a represented witness without notifying the witness’s counsel;3 and a government lawyer’s ethical violations in making a disparaging, public pretrial statement about a professional under investigation by the lawyer.4 In the two judicial discipline decisions, the Court discussed the factors warranting serious discipline and illuminated the ethical peril that arises when incoming judges fail to appreciate the obligations assumed with the new judicial role.5 During the survey period, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications also resolved another matter with a Public Commission Admonitions in lieu of filing formal charges against a former judicial officer who acted outside the expectations of the judicial role.6 ————————————————————————————— * Executive Director, Indiana Office of Judicial and Attorney Regulation.	cache/inlawrev-29045.pdf	txt/inlawrev-29045.txt