Goodbye to the Practice of Law; Indiana Disciplinary Commission Incurred More Expenses Prosecuting Ogden Than Any Other Attorney

When I protested earlier to the Indiana Supreme Court that the Disciplinary Commission deliberately ran up an expense bill on me to force me out of practicing law, I don't think the justices believed me.  So I decided to undergo the painstaking process of going through the docket of each disciplinary case over the last two years to determine how much in expenses each disciplined attorney was ordered to pay.  An order often detailed in a docket entry contains the breakdown of the following types expenses attorneys in disciplinary cases are generally ordered to pay: 

Disciplinary Commission - investigation expenses.
Clerk - court costs
Supreme Court - hearing officer and court reporter expenses.

For the attorneys with the most expenses, I documented the discipline the attorney ended up receiving. There were a few occasions when the dollar amount on expenses was not spelled out or there did not appear to be any mention of expenses in the docket.  It should also be noted that the designation WAR means suspended "with automatic readmission" and WOAR means "without automatic readmission," i.e. attorneys have to reapply for readmission and get approval.  For many attorneys a WOAR designation means they will neer practice law again.

Upon completion of my survey, it turns out my instincts were right.  The Commission ran up more expenses prosecuting me for an email than any other attorney.

Name	DC Inv. Exp.	Clerk-Court Costs	SCT -HO & Ct Rep.	Total	Result
Ogden, Paul K.	5360.34	250	14813.20	20423.50	Susp 30 days WAR
Geller, Steven B.	8465.48	250	7740	16455.50	Disbarred
Haigh, Christopher E.	5549.75	250	9880.2	15680.00	Disbarred
Usher IV, Arthur J.	7026.69	250	4380	11656.70	Susp 3 years WOAR
Denney, Louis W.	4717.1	250	5350	10317.10	Susp 3 years WOAR
Benson, Craig R.	2749.04	250	6871.08	9870.12	Susp 180 days WOAR
Dempsey, Gordon B.	3265.73	250	4125.16	7640.89	Susp 3 years WOAR
Stern, Patrick H	3527.71	250	1933.05	5710.76	Susp 18 mos WOAR
Smith, Joseph Stork	2463.83	250	2008.3	4722.13	Disbarred
Alexander, Michael	243.63	250	3850	4343.63	Susp 60 days WAR
Schalk, David E.	1096.64	250	2953.84	4300.48	Susp 9 mos WOAR
Snulligan, Octavia F.	1527.16	250	2445.35	4222.51	Susp 30 Days WOAR
Coleman, Jesse L.	1003.9	250	2075	3328.90	Not Reviewed
Ross, Roberta	722.63	250	1775	2747.63	Not Reviewed
Cole, Scott C.	2079.2	250	160	2489.20	Not Reviewed
Atkins, Trezanay M.	306.96	250	1910	2466.96	Not Reviewed
Baker, Patrick V.	2250.81	0	0	2250.81	Not Reviewed
Collins, Robert L.	489	250	1425	2164	Not Reviewed
Frazier, Ronald W.	1863.09	250	0	2113.09	Not Reviewed
McClure, Alfred	1092.39	250	440	1782.39	Not Reviewed
Clark, Timothy V.	937.63	250	450	1637.63	Not Reviewed
Heck, Jeffrey D.	688.73	250	690	1628.73	Not Reviewed
Beal, Shane E.	1197.39	250	0	1447.39	Not Reviewed
Kahn, Stanley	1096.8	250	0	1346.8	Not Reviewed
Voils, Alex R.	1082.55	250	0	1332.55	Not Reviewed
Weldy, Ronald E.	982.27	250	0	1232.27	Not Reviewed
Kinnard, Terrence	811.46	250	0	1061.46	Not Reviewed
Jones, Carl C.	679.8	250	0	929.80	Not Reviewed
Devlin, Maureen	210	250	420	880.00	Not Reviewed
Suarez, Edward J. Martinez	540	250	0	790.00	Not Reviewed
Brejensky, Steve L.	36.18	250	458.35	744.53	Not Reviewed
Potthast, Lindsay C.	0	250	469.25	719.25	Not Reviewed
Woodmansee, Todd A.	193.91	250	240	683.91	Not Reviewed
Holcomb Jr., Noah	21.85	250	350	621.85	Not Reviewed
Schrems, Patrick M.	71.2	100	417.64	588.84	Not Reviewed
Randolph, Lonnie M.	133.4	250	185	568.40	Not Reviewed
Criss, Jon A.	0	250	300	550	Not Reviewed
Godshalk, Randy A.	0	250	300	550	Not Reviewed
Wallace III, William R.	288.28	250	0	538.28	Not Reviewed
Stiles, Randall B.	530.55	0	0	530.55	Not Reviewed
Johnson, Amanda	524.44	0	0	524.44	Not Reviewed
Raventos, Peter S.	524.44	0	0	524.44	Not Reviewed
Sokolowski, David J.	524.44	0	0	524.44	Not Reviewed
Stiles, Randall B.	524.44	0	0	524.44	Not Reviewed
Stuard, F. Scott	524.44	0	0	524.44	Not Reviewed
Stuard, F. Scott	524.44	0	0	524.44	Not Reviewed
Weber, Brad J.	524.44	0	0	524.44	Not Reviewed
Roby, Veronica M.	523.72	0	0	523.72	Not Reviewed
Stuard, F. Scott	518.33	0	0	518.33	Not Reviewed
Stoops, Eldon E.	0	250	267.42	517.42	Not Reviewed
Oulette, Steven J.	512.96	0	0	512.96	Not Reviewed
Heck, Jeffrey D.	512.22	0	0	512.22	Not Reviewed
Johnson, Elton D.	512.22	0	0	512.22	Not Reviewed
Lipsky, Michael L.	512.22	0	0	512.22	Not Reviewed
Snulligan, Octavia F.	511.9	0	0	511.90	Not Reviewed
Brenman, Jeremy S.	511.5	0	0	511.50	Not Reviewed
Brenman, Jeremy S.	511.5	0	0	511.50	Not Reviewed
Johnson, John A.	506.11	0	0	506.11	Not Reviewed
Nelson, John W.	0	250	250	500	Not Reviewed
Robson, Ray W.	0	250	250	500	Not Reviewed
Joyce, John M.	38.63	250	210	498.63	Not Reviewed
Followell, Douglas S.	0	100	381	481	Not Reviewed
Auger, Jennifer J.	0	250	155	405	Not Reviewed
Auger, Michael R.	0	250	155	405	Not Reviewed
Stoops, Eldon E.	0	250	143.52	393.52	Not Reviewed
Barker, Joseph B.	140.5	250	0	390.50	Not Reviewed
Aguilar, Marisa	0	250	140	390	Not Reviewed
Hittle, Lori Ann	0	250	104	354	Not Reviewed
Okanlami, Olubunmi O.	0	250	100	350	Not Reviewed
May, Dan J.	91.52	250	0	341.52	Not Reviewed
Hogan, Frank W.	49.59	250	0	299.59	Not Reviewed
Brenman, Jeremy S.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Carr, Bruce A.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Compton, Julia N.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Corbitt, David E.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Corcella, Ellen M.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Crawford, Lisa M.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Eckert, John Carroll	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Eyster, Randy C.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Freeman, Timothy	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Garcia Jr., Juan Carlos	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Hedges, Christopher c.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Holajter, Leonard M.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Holesinger, Clark W.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Hughes, Mark J.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Janeway, Kathryn C.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Kelly, Hubert E.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Kendall, Michael C.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Kotz, James C.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Kotz, James C.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
McGillvrray, Roderick D.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Mitchner, Kent D.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Mullisn, Earl C. Jr.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Murphy, Benjamen W.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Page, Paul J.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Rees, David F.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Scott, David J.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Smith III, Jess, M	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Storms, Scott	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Truman, Karl N.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Watson, Mark E.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Wolfe, Stephen P.	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Wyser, David	0	250	0	250	Not Reviewed
Garvin, Mark A.	115	0	0	115	Not Reviewed

I suspect that the Court thought I was the one who unnecessarily ran up the expense bill.  In reality it was the Commission that did that, no doubt as part of a deliberate strategy.  Evidence?   The Commission wouldn't even respond to my settlement offer (which was nearly the same as the 30 day suspension I ended up receiving) and refused to stipulate to facts even though probably 98% of facts could have been stipulated to.  Instead of a stipulation, the Commission insisted on presenting evidence at an 11 1/2 hour hearing.  The courtroom was filled with DC staffers who apparently were there to assist or watch the spectacle of the Commission's leading critic be put on trial.   Of course, the Commission undoubtedly knew I would be stuck with the bill for the court reporter and the hearing officer.    The Commission undoubtedly also knew I would have to pay for the considerable amount of time the hearing officer  spent preparing the 85 page report, which had very few citations to the record and which contained reasoning that appeared to be completely rejected by the Court.

After receiving the Commission's expense bill following the Court's decision, I asked the Court to reconsider in light of how little of the case the Commission had won and presented a sworn statement that the Commission had never talked to me or my witnesses during the investigatory stage, that I had offered a reasonable settlement offer that would have allowed the proceeding to be resolved early on, and that we had attempted to stipulate to facts to avoid a lengthy trial but the Commission refused.  In short, the vast majority of the expenses were driven by decisions the Commission had made.  I also also asked that the Commission be ordered to itemize the expenses which is expressly required by the rules.

In response, the Commission's attorney, as he had done in the complaint falsely representing to the Court that I had engaged in an ex parte communication in a second charge tossed out by the Court, simply started making stuff up in court filings.  I counted at least three outright fabrications.  The DC attorney claimed that the Commission had been in contact with me following my response to the grievances.  It was a lie.  It never happened.  Second, the DC attorney reported to the Court that the Commission had asked for a settlement meeting with me and that that meeting lasted three hours.  Again, the DC's attorney lied.  It never happened.   Third, the Commission's attorney in the Response reported to the Court that I refused to admit to a rule violation as part of settlement.  Again, another lie.  In the written settlement offer I made, which the Commission didn't respond to, I expressly agreed to admit to a violation.

The Commission's attorney never offered any proof whatsoever in support of these three claims and apparently didn't want to make his false statements the form of an affidavit.  Nonetheless, there is still a disciplinary rule that requires that attorneys show candor to the Court.  I don't believe Disciplinary Commission attorneys practicing before the Indiana Supreme Court should be exempted from following that rule.  Attorneys being disciplined and attorneys prosecuting discipline, should be held to the same ethical standards.

Nonetheless, the Indiana Supreme Court refused to reconsider the expense bill (and didn't require an itemization) leaving me with no choice but to walk away from practicing law.  On Wednesday I filed paperwork to put my license in "inactive" status.

So I, an attorney who had never been disciplined in my over 26 years of practicing law, lost my right to practice law in the State of Indiana because I sent a private email criticizing a judge in which I accidentally got a couple minor facts wrong.  (Never mind NY Times v. Sullivan which says my speech was protected by the First Amendment.)  My hope is that my case FINALLY causes the Indiana Supreme Court to take some responsibility for the too often outrageous conduct of the Disciplinary Commission, which is an arm of the Court, and adopt long needed reforms in how the Commission operates, including more transparency and accountability.  Indiana attorneys and the public deserve better.