In the Matter of Donald Edward James
70 N.E.3d 346
| Ind. | 2017Background
- Donald E. James, admitted 1985, was the subject of a Verified Complaint by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission alleging trust-account mismanagement and conversion in 2015.
- Commission attempted certified-mail service at two Fort Wayne addresses; after unsuccessful attempts, constructive service was made on the Clerk under Adm. & Disc. R. 23(12)(h).
- James did not respond to the complaint, largely failed to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation, and did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings.
- The hearing officer took the verified complaint’s allegations as true and found repeated trust-account overdrafts, commingling of client and personal funds, unauthorized withdrawals for personal use, invasion/conversion of client funds, and inadequate trust-account records.
- The hearing officer found multiple aggravating factors (dishonest/selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, some criminal conduct, deception in investigation, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing) and recommended disbarment.
- The Indiana Supreme Court adopted the hearing officer’s findings, concluded James violated multiple Indiana Professional Conduct Rules and Adm. & Disc. R. 23 provisions, and ordered immediate disbarment; costs were assessed against James.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether James committed professional misconduct relating to trust accounts | Commission: James overdrew trust account, commingled funds, made unauthorized personal withdrawals, and failed to keep records | James: No response/argument presented | Court: Found proven; violations of P.C.R. 1.15(a), 8.4(c), and related Adm. & Disc. R. 23 provisions |
| Whether James failed to cooperate with disciplinary process | Commission: James largely ignored investigative demands and proceedings | James: No response | Court: Found violation of P.C.R. 8.1(b) (failure to respond) |
| Whether criminal conversion occurred and bears on discipline | Commission: Unauthorized withdrawals and invasion of client funds constitute conversion and reflect adversely on fitness | James: No response | Court: Found criminal conversion in violation of P.C.R. 8.4(b) and aggravating factor |
| Appropriate sanction (disbarment vs lesser discipline) | Commission: Disbarment appropriate given risk to public and pattern of misconduct | James: No response to argue for mitigation | Court: Disbarred James immediately; assessed costs, citing protection of public and integrity of profession |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2000) (accepting hearing officer findings when unchallenged)
- Matter of Newman, 958 N.E.2d 792 (Ind. 2011) (factors for assessing discipline include nature of misconduct, duties violated, harm, state of mind, and public protection)
- Matter of Frosch, 643 N.E.2d 902 (Ind. 1994) (misuse of client funds severely undermines bar integrity and public safety)
- Matter of Johnson, 53 N.E.3d 1177 (Ind. 2016) (disbarment in cases showing unfitness to hold a law license)
- Matter of Ouellette, 37 N.E.3d 490 (Ind. 2015) (disbarment for serious trust-account violations)
- Matter of Hill, 655 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. 1995) (disbarment where attorney’s conduct demonstrated risk to clients and profession)