*1 309 authority impose have consecutive unless there sentences specific authorizing. is a statute so
Appellant authority cites no that a life sentence is cruel and punishment. unusual argument substance of his
it more becomes difficult for him to on be released parole permitting because statute consecutive say legislature may sentences. it Suffice paroles. all may such, If it do may parole also abolish more impossible difficult or in certain cases. The terms parole legislative a matter policy. are providing Statutes for establishing consecutive sentences and statutes conditions parole justice” for represent legis “vindictive but opinion way lature’s best construct a reformative penal liberty dispute legislature’s code. are not at We prerogative.
Judgment affirmed.
All Justices concur. Reported at 330 N.E.2d
Note. — Ray Matter Ackerman. July 2,
[No. 474S81. Filed 1975.] Williams, Marshall E. Heeter, Johnson, Williams, Salb & Indianapolis, respondent. Grabham, Richard H. Secretary, Craig Executive Stevens, S. Indianapolis, Supreme Indiana Com- mission. re- disciplinary proceeding. J. This is
Prentice, charged his oath as attor- violation of spondent violation state and with the ney to the bar of admitted adjunctive to of Pro- disciplinary rules the Code of various *2 attorneys at have before Responsibility for law. We fessional action, complaint for the verified us objec- hearing officer, the of the recommendations of fact and to recommendations Disciplinary Commission said of tions objections. opposition said respondent’s brief in to and the being foregoing having reviewed the and now adopts premises accepts find- now and advised following: ings fact, which in disclose substance Hughes personal Respondent one ac- and Cordell were Hughes quaintances friends and had close in common. several employ- respondent accepted difficulty in financial and was prosecute bankruptcy proceedings ment for him. A fee to paid agreed actually upon, was of which was $140.00 $200.00 understanding by No reached con- several installments. was cerning payment the court or whether not full costs or bankruptcy required prior filing fee would to the highly petition. in- conferences between two were unprofessional. bankruptcy petition, an formal and signed state, incomplete in a tavern had where the two was Hughes previously negotiated, that at time communicated and required respondent. information to the the remainder of the agreed Subsequent employment first to was time Hughes prior payment by to the time the last but was made respondent, Hughes respondent to his advised wages garnisheed, about were to be and assured causing Hughes prevent it, thereby him that he to would however, petition Thereafter, that the believe would filed. community himself from the he absented where meeting Hughes spent to and were accustomed and most of period an a business his time for extended on venture Kentucky. Respondent bankruptcy petition, did not file nor any arrangements concerning notify did he it. He did not make him, and when Hughes his known whereabouts to or wages located the Hughes’ attached, he was were unable respondent. Hughes com- proceedings, institution
Prior to the Indianapolis Bar Association and the Grievance plained to the Respondent, that association how- interceded. Committee committee, uncooperative hence ef- ever its Hughes difficulty between him and were to resolve the forts thwarted. constituted
The aforesaid conduct of the attorney violation oath at law and a violation his (2) (A) (3); (A)(1), and 6-101 7-101 Rules (3) (5) (6) (A) of Professional 1-102 Code legal neglect Responsibility, he matter entrusted in that did objectives him, by failed seek his lawful reason- client’s ably means, carry em- failed out contract of available his engage prejudice, ployment, client’s conduct did his reflecting justice prejudicial the administration *3 adversely upon fitness to law. his foregoing, By censored reason the is now appear by is ordered to this Court and before this Court on July, p.m. day public reprimand. the of 1975 at 1:30 for 22nd hearing the recommendation of officer It was the that our attorney’s restitution to include order of as the action fees paid respondent, and we are not to unmindful that didwe previous In Case, (1974) a Re restitution in order case. 261 However, 118, we have since Ind. 311 N.E.2d reconsidered expressed by DeB separate Justice ruler views in his the therein, opinion follows: as join majority do not the likewise in its “I decision to part requirement discipline, order for the
include as that the paid the clients of restitution be as precedent to his reinstatement. This order of a condition following inappropriate for the reasons: restitution remedy injury of a client who has sustained “1. attorney’s negligence or breach of his con- a result of as damages by way for of a claim be instituted at tract attorney litigation, the would the trial court level. that range many which, defenses, have the full such attorney set-off, in defense of a necessarily not be available would charge. disciplinary damages would choose to exclude the issues of “2. litigated in disci- from the matters to restitution plinary proceedings are not essential that those matters for the reasons disciplinary purpose main regulate professional proceeding, conduct is to which lawyers public interest; in it is of my and also because long belief, that run the establishment of right aggrieved a clients to obtain amounts to what damages against lawyers pro- judgment in ceedings proceedings the focus of such to move will cause main determining purpose when a violation of of from its purpose occurred, to the lesser ethical standards aggrieved affinity making the client Thereby, whole. determining particular proceedings whether a fiduciary duty, constituted violation of act or omission will eroded. Discipline “3. Admission and Rules of this Court authorize, hearing nor did the attempt, do not officer damage support ag- of a make grieved award to the discipline clients. The order of to which nowI attempt dissent, does assess the amount of restitu- should
tion which
and is therefore unlaw-
vague.
patent
process
It is a
denial of due
to make
vague
order,
after a
such
at which the amount
damages
litigated.
not an issue or
damages
money
aggrieved
“4. The amount of
due the
attorney
constitutionally
cannot
client from
be deter-
disciplinary proceeding,
in a
mined
to do so would
attorney
right
deny
by jury.
to trial
necessary
is no
“5. There
nexus
demonstrated
proceeding,
ability
record
respondent
between the
of this
restitution
ability
to make
and his
to reassume
lawyer
fiduciary
following
role of
year
the
of
period
the one
suspension.”
Givan, and J. dissents C.J. Hunter, J., opinion in concurs. which Dissenting Opinion majority opinion dissent the in this J. from
Arterburn, disciplinary approve matter the recommendation the and Hearing part penalty as in this case Officer that required restitution client to the he took failed to return. monies argument my opinion,
In may restitution ob- damages separate specious. civil tained in a action for is wrongs which at the law has between a line times drawn totally criminal nature those of a civil nature is artificial purpose proceedings in criminal and serves a in order rights correctly constitutional more define a This of defendant. civil, action is neither criminal nor to me it appears ridiculous that we have to determine wrong punishment done and to determine the follow the wrong go say question then do not that we into damage any reparation not done and whether or been has case, If not do that we did this we have not heard made. Hearing case Officer the full should have done. reparation cases, case, part ques- a criminal all even is fixing penalty. Although it comes to tion when case, say fixing I would it would not criminal be absurd in say us punishment that at trial was irrelevant inquire judge or reparation trial whether for the had remedy by there no way damages been made. Sometimes except defendant is destitute the concealed when only remedy property he taken. such a case is punishment court to condition for the restitution injured party. to the *5 closing reasoning logic and so-called used in believe the totally of this case artificial. eyes to the realities
our completely occurred, wrong case, if one should be in this proceeding. punishment possible in adjusted as one far conditioned, upon correcting possible, insofar as be should fixing problems in the amount since injustice. I see no investigated thoroughly been should matter have whole much still owed. I would reference how heard with Hearing Officer that the recommendation follow injured upon a restitution to the punishment conditioned party. J.,
Hunter, concurs. Reported at 322. 330 N.E.2d NOTE.— Order having approved reviewed being appointed fact of the officer hereinbefore Raymond respondent, advised, that the ordered is now July, appear day this Court Ackerman, before on the 22nd reprimand. p.m. public 1975 at 1:30 that, prior appearance to said It is further ordered the Clerk of this Court the costs of herein, Failing suspended proceedings. shall pending further law in this state from of this Court. order the Clerk shall
It further ordered of this Court copy of this order to be served forthwith cause record, any, by if upon his counsel certified requested. receipt return mail with City Indianapolis, County Marion, Done State day July, Indiana, 2nd Givan,
Richard M. Chief Justice