Joseph C. Lehman v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 179
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Joseph C. Lehman was suspended from practicing law by the Indiana Supreme Court effective April 3, 2014, for at least two years.
- After suspension Lehman continued to provide legal services: negotiated a divorce settlement for Jim Marlow (emails and calls in April 2014), consulted with Neredya Alvarez in October 2014 (accepted $80, offered to prepare paperwork for $1,000, used a business card stating “Attorney at Law”), and prepared a quitclaim deed for Innocente Lacan in November 2014 for $50.
- Police were notified after the clerk’s office learned Lehman had prepared Lacan’s deed; Alvarez later learned of his suspension and reported him; Lehman returned her $80 fee.
- The State charged Lehman with three counts of Class B misdemeanor unauthorized practice of law. Lehman moved for change of judge, demanded a jury trial late, and sought severance; the trial court denied change of judge, found he waived a jury, and denied severance.
- After a bench trial on October 5, 2015, Lehman was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 540 days suspended to one year of probation. He appealed, raising (1) denial of change of judge, (2) waiver of jury trial, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred denying change of judge for bias | Lehman’s affidavit shows prior negative interactions and an attitude by Judge Bonfiglio supporting a rational inference of bias | Affidavit contains speculation, non-historical facts, and irrelevant assertions — no rational inference of bias | Denial affirmed: affidavit lacked historical facts to infer bias; no clear error |
| Whether Lehman waived his right to a jury trial | The State: omnibus/trial date was set April 22, 2015; Lehman needed to demand jury at least 10 days earlier | Lehman: claimed he did not know April 22 was the first scheduled trial date for Rule 22 purposes | Held: Lehman waived jury by filing demand on April 22 rather than by April 12; ignorance not excusable |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict for practicing law by a non-attorney | The State: emails, calls, receipts, business card, consultation and document preparation show Lehman professed to be an attorney and engaged in legal business | Lehman: he provided only general legal information and did not practice after suspension (re Marlow) | Held: Sufficient — negotiating settlement, consulting, charging fees, and drafting a deed constitute unauthorized practice |
| Whether drafting legal instruments constituted practicing law | The State: preparation of legal documents is the practice of law under precedent | Lehman: impliedly minimized document preparation as non-lawyer activity | Held: Drafting/preparing legal instruments (quitclaim deed, paperwork) is practicing law and supports convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Sturgeon v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1173 (1999) (standard for review and requirements for affidavit supporting change of judge)
- Voss v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1211 (2006) (judge must treat affidavit facts as true and determine whether they support a rational inference of bias)
- Mork v. State, 912 N.E.2d 408 (2009) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence and reasonable inferences viewed most favorably to verdict)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (2007) (sufficiency principles and appellate review standard)
- Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855 (2010) (discusses elements and proof requirements for unauthorized practice convictions)
- Matter of Fletcher, 655 N.E.2d 58 (1995) (definition of practice of law includes legal advice and counsel)
- Fink v. Peden, 17 N.E.2d 95 (1938) (historical statement on what constitutes practice of law)
- State ex rel. Ind. State Bar Ass’n v. Diaz, 838 N.E.2d 433 (2005) (preparation of immigration documents, contracts, pleadings constitutes practice of law)
- State ex rel. Ind. State Bar Ass’n v. Northouse, 848 N.E.2d 668 (2006) (drafting testamentary and trust documents is practice of law)
- State ex rel. Ind. Real Estate Ass’n v. Ind. Real Estate Ass’n, 191 N.E.2d 711 (1963) (preparation of deeds and filling legal instrument blanks can be unauthorized practice of law)