54 N.E.3d 993
Ind.2016Background
- Charles P. White, admitted 1995, was criminally indicted in 2011 and ultimately convicted of three class D felonies: perjury, voting outside his precinct, and theft following appellate resolution (see White v. State, 25 N.E.3d 107).
- White had been under interim suspension since April 25, 2012; he also had a separate suspension for CLE noncompliance.
- The Disciplinary Commission and White submitted a stipulated "Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline." They agreed he violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c).
- Aggravating facts: illegal conduct and dishonest/selfish motives; mitigating facts: no prior discipline and voluntary repayment of amounts tied to the theft conviction and related costs.
- The parties proposed a suspension of at least two years without automatic reinstatement; the Court considered that White already would have served over six years of suspension (interim plus final) before eligibility to petition for reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did White's felony convictions violate RPC 8.4(b) (criminal acts reflecting adversely on fitness)? | Convictions for perjury, illegal voting, and theft demonstrate criminal acts that reflect adversely on honesty and fitness. | White stipulated to the facts but noted mitigation (repayment, no prior discipline). | Yes. Convictions establish violations of RPC 8.4(b). |
| Did White's conduct violate RPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation)? | The criminal conduct involved dishonesty and deceit, satisfying 8.4(c). | White acknowledged the conduct but relied on mitigation and the conditional agreement. | Yes. Conduct violated RPC 8.4(c). |
| What discipline is appropriate for these violations? | The Commission proposed at least a two-year suspension without automatic reinstatement, considering seriousness and public trust. | White and Commission jointly agreed to the proposed discipline; noted mitigating factors and long interim suspension already served. | Court approved suspension of not less than two years without automatic reinstatement, noting interim suspension time already served and the heavy burden for reinstatement. |
| Is automatic reinstatement appropriate? | No—seriousness of misconduct and public trust require heightened reinstatement scrutiny. | Parties agreed no automatic reinstatement; White must prove fitness by clear and convincing evidence. | Denied automatic reinstatement; White may petition after the minimum suspension and must meet Rule 23 requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. State, 25 N.E.3d 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate disposition of White's criminal convictions)
- Matter of White, 969 N.E.2d 588 (Ind. 2012) (order imposing interim suspension)
- Matter of Gutman, 599 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. 1992) (dishonest conduct by public officials undermines public trust)
- Matter of Riddle, 700 N.E.2d 788 (Ind. 1998) (severe sanctions for misconduct by public officials)
- Matter of Newman, 958 N.E.2d 792 (Ind. 2011) (factors to consider in disciplinary analysis)
- Matter of Philpot, 31 N.E.3d 468 (Ind. 2015) (suspension for elected official convicted of theft and mail fraud)