In the Matter of: Christopher E. Haigh
7 N.E.3d 980
| Ind. | 2014Background
- Respondent Christopher Haigh was suspended from the Indiana bar for at least two years, effective August 15, 2008, for Rule 8.4(b) and (c) violations arising from inappropriate conduct with minors.
- Haigh holds USPTO admission since June 26, 2000 and practiced before federal courts; USPTO reciprocally suspended him in 2009 concurrent with Indiana suspension.
- Indiana Supreme Court filed a verified petition for rule to show cause alleging contempt for practicing law or holding himself out as attorney after suspension.
- Hearing officer found Haigh engaged in ongoing schemes post-suspension through Margco, IPXtract, Hurley Stanners, Caliber IP, and related entities to provide or facilitate legal work.
- Haigh maintained a website for IPXtract and acted as a paralegal or supervisor in various capacities, with the court deeming these acts as practicing law during suspension.
- The Court held that Haigh’s post-suspension actions violated Indiana suspension and, under its jurisdiction, constituted indirect contempt warranting disbarment and a $1,000 fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Haigh violate his Indiana suspension with post-suspension activities? | Haigh engaged in legal work and held out as attorney after suspension. | Haigh relied on paralegal defenses under the Federal Regulation to continue work. | Yes; violations established and aggravating circumstances present. |
| Does the Indiana Supreme Court have jurisdiction to sanction Haigh for activities connected to federal courts or out-of-state matters? | Any post-suspension acts violating suspension in any forum may be sanctionable under Indiana authority. | Some acts lack Indiana connection; jurisdiction should be limited. | Court has jurisdiction; violations tied to suspension and related conduct warrant sanction. |
| Is Haigh liable for indirect contempt given the procedures followed? | Due process protections were provided; conduct harmed the court’s integrity. | Procedural defenses contested; argues lack of direct contempt elements. | Indirect contempt proven with due process protections satisfied. |
| What sanction is appropriate for Haigh’s contempt? | Severe sanction including disbarment and imprisonment anticipated; substantial deterrence warranted. | Requests only extended suspension and fine; opposes imprisonment. | Disbarment and a $1,000 fine; imprisonment reserved for future contempt. |
| Were due-process or credibility issues properly resolved given Haigh’s testimony and related testimony? | Evidence supports conclusions; credibility findings sustain sanctions. | Challenges to credibility and reliance on disputed testimony. | Hearing officer’s credibility determinations and reasoning upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Newman, 958 N.E.2d 792 (Ind. 2011) (factors for assessing appropriate attorney sanctions in discipline matters)
- Matter of Freeman, 999 N.E.2d 844 (Ind. 2013) (scope of sanctions and contempt within disciplinary context)
- Matter of Nehrig, 973 N.E.2d 567 (Ind. 2012) (standards for imposing sanctions in disciplinary actions)
- Matter of Perrello, 386 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. 1979) (principles regarding court jurisdiction and disciplinary authority)
- Matter of Nasser, 644 N.E.2d 93 (Ind. 1994) (due process protections in indirect contempt proceedings)