LAW.coLAW.co

IN RE: Failure to Satisfy Costs in Lawyer DISCIPLINE Case OF: Scott A. ADAMS (2021)

Supreme Court of Indiana.2021-09-22No. Supreme Court Case No. 20S-DI-390

Summary

Holding. The court suspended Adams from the practice of law in Indiana effective ten days from the order's date for failing to satisfy costs ordered in the disciplinary proceeding by the required deadline.

Scott A. Adams failed to pay costs assessed against him in a disciplinary proceeding by the deadline set for annual attorney registration fees, violating Indiana's admission and discipline rules. The Indiana Supreme Court suspended Adams from practicing law in the state effective ten days after the order was issued. Adams may seek reinstatement by filing an application under the relevant rules, provided he satisfies all reinstatement requirements and has no other suspensions in effect.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Failure to pay disciplinary costs by the annual registration fee deadline
  • Suspension of attorney license for non-compliance with cost payment requirement
  • Conditions and procedure for reinstatement after suspension

Procedural posture

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission petitioned for suspension of Adams for failure to satisfy costs in a disciplinary action, and Adams filed no response to the petition.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

Published Order Suspending Attorney for Failure to Pay Costs

On August 6, 2021, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a “Petition for Suspension of Attorney for Failure to Satisfy Costs Ordered in Connection with Certain Proceedings under Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23,” asserting that Respondent failed to pay costs assessed in this disciplinary action by the due date of the attorneys annual registration fee (October 1), in violation of the requirements of Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10.1)(d) or Rule 23(21), and Respondent is therefore subject to suspension under Admission and Discipline Rule 2(h). Respondent has filed no response to the Commissions petition.

Being duly advised, the Court now SUSPENDS Respondent from the practice of law in Indiana, effective ten days from the date of this order. Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). Respondent may file an application for reinstatement to the practice of law in this state pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 2(h), provided the requirements of that provision are met. Reinstatement will be granted only if no other suspension is in effect and Respondent is otherwise eligible for reinstatement. Applications for reinstatement or for other relief shall be filed under this case number.

All Justices concur.