FOR THE RESPONDENT FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT
|Kenneth L. Anderson Attorney at Law 9105 Indianapolis Blvd., Ste. D Highland, IN 46322||Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary Dennis K. McKinney, Staff Attorney 115 West Washington Street, Ste. 1060 Indianapolis, IN 46204|
IN THE MATTER OF )
) CASE NO. 45S00-9901-DI-4
JOHN J. HALCARZ, JR. )
that other remedies might be available to the client. These sections of the rule provide:
Rule 1.4(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
Rule 1.4(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Upon concluding that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct, we must now assess the appropriateness of the agreed discipline, that being a public reprimand. Having undertaken the appeal, the respondent had a professional obligation to either complete the task for which he was hired or promptly inform the client of his intent not to pursue the appeal and of the client's remaining options.
In assessing the adequacy of a disciplinary sanction, this Court also considers aggravating and mitigating circumstances. See, e.g., Matter of Christoff and Holmes, 690 N.E.2d 1135 (Ind. 1997); Matter of Darling, 685 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. 1997); Matter of Conway, 658 N.E.2d 592 (Ind. 1995). Here, in mitigation, the parties agree that the respondent has cooperated with the Commission in the course of these proceedings. We are further mindful that this is a single incidence of misconduct and is the first disciplinary proceeding against the respondent since his admission to the Indiana Bar in 1972. These mitigating factors and the fact that agreed dispositions of disciplinary matters are to be encouragedSee footnote 1 persuade us that the proposed disciplinary sanction is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Further,
a public reprimand comports with disciplinary sanctions imposed by this Court for similar
Accordingly, we approve the tendered agreement.
It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent, John J. Halcarz, Jr., is hereby reprimanded and admonished for the professional misconduct exhibited in this case.
The clerk of this Court is directed to provide notice of this order in accordance with Admis.Disc.R. 23(3)(d) and to provide the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the clerk of each of the United States District Courts in this state, and the clerk for each of the United States Bankruptcy Courts in this state with the last known address of the respondent as reflected in the records of the clerk.
Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent.
Converted from WP6.1 by the Access Indiana Information Network