144 N.E.3d 184
Ind.2020Background
- Curtis T. Hill Jr., Indiana Attorney General, attended a post‑legislative‑session bar event and made nonconsensual touching of four women (one legislator and three legislative staffers).
- A privately commissioned Taft Report about the incident was leaked; the four women later went public and Hill assembled a team to manage his public response.
- The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission charged Hill with violating Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d) and the Oath of Attorneys; a hearing officer found violations of 8.4(b) and 8.4(d), not the Oath, and recommended a 60‑day suspension without automatic reinstatement.
- The Court reviewed de novo, emphasizing the hearing officer’s firsthand witness observations, and evaluated criminality (battery), nexus to fitness, and prejudice to the administration of justice.
- The Court concluded Hill committed misdemeanor battery, violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d), rejected the Oath charge, found some aggravation from post‑leak responses but limited relevance of team emails, and imposed a 30‑day suspension with automatic reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Commission's Argument | Hill's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill committed battery at the bar | Hill knowingly/ intentionally touched women in a rude/insolent manner | Contact was incidental/social, not criminal; no intent | Court: clear and convincing evidence Hill committed misdemeanor battery (touching + manner/intent inferred) |
| Whether battery violates Rule 8.4(b) (criminal act reflecting on fitness) | Hill’s criminal acts occurred while performing official duties (networking, discussing legislation), so nexus to fitness exists | The event was private/social and disconnected from official duties, so no nexus | Court: nexus exists—Hill attended to perform official functions; 8.4(b) violated |
| Whether Hill’s conduct violated Rule 8.4(d) (prejudicial to administration of justice) | As Attorney General, Hill is an officer charged with administration of the law; criminal conduct inherently prejudicial | AG role differs from prosecutors; declination of criminal charges shows no public‑justice harm | Court: AG is an officer charged with administration of the law; Rule 8.4(d) violated |
| Appropriate sanction and role of post‑leak emails | Emails and team conduct show aggravation warranting non‑automatic reinstatement | Many emails irrelevant, hearsay/privilege objections; Hill had some apology and mitigating factors; similar cases warrant short suspension with automatic reinstatement | Court: emails were admissible but only minimally aggravating; imposed 30‑day suspension with automatic reinstatement and costs assessed |
Key Cases Cited
- Impson v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. 2000) (any touching, however slight, may constitute battery)
- Diallo v. State, 928 N.E.2d 250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (factfinder assesses intent from surrounding circumstances)
- Matter of Oliver, 493 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. 1986) (nexus requirement between criminal acts and fitness/professional discipline)
- Matter of Eddingfield, 572 N.E.2d 1293 (Ind. 1991) (post‑Oliver application of disciplinary standards)
- Matter of Walker, 597 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. 1992) (part‑time prosecutor’s domestic battery bore on fitness)
- Matter of Robertson, 78 N.E.3d 1090 (Ind. 2016) (criminal acts during legal work bear immediately on fitness)
- Matter of May, 992 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. 2013) (battery by attorney and short suspension with automatic reinstatement)
- Matter of Junk, 815 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. 2004) (deputy attorney general misconduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
- Matter of Janeway, 981 N.E.2d 548 (Ind. 2013) (prosecutorial OWI discipline)
- Matter of Adams, et al., 134 N.E.3d 50 (Ind. 2019) (judicial battery discipline and comparative sanctioning)