An Indianapolis attorney who converted his only employee’s
Social Security withholdings for his own personal use for more than a
decade has been disbarred from the practice of law after the Indiana
Supreme Court found that he had committed attorney misconduct.
Supreme Court justices unanimously concluded in a Monday
per curiam order that disbarment was the best option for attorney Steven
Fulk, who “committed attorney misconduct by neglecting a client’s case,
converting an employee’s tax withholdings for his own personal use, and
failing to cooperate with the disciplinary process.”
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a
two-count disciplinary complaint against Fulk in May 2019 and although
he was served, Fulk never properly appeared or responded. After a
hearing officer took the facts alleged in the complaint as true, the
justices accepted the allegations against Fulk, finding no petition for
review of the case’s hearing officer’s report was filed in the case of In The Matter of Steven T Fulk, 19S-DI-00277.
Justices had already indefinitely suspended Fulk,
who was twice suspended in 2019 for his noncooperation with the
disciplinary commission’s investigations of grievances against him.
In Count 1, the Supreme Court’s order says Fulk
represented Client 1 in post-dissolution matters in Hamilton County.
When the client’s ex-wife filed a motion for rule to show cause alleging
Fulk’s client had failed to reimburse his portion of uninsured medical
and dental expenses for several years, a hearing on the matter was
scheduled.
However, neither Fulk nor Client 1 appeared for the
hearing, despite both the court and opposing counsel having sent notice
of the hearing date to Fulk. As a result, Client 1 was found in contempt
and ordered to pay back medical and dental support and attorney fees
within 45 days.
The order also says that Client 1 later filed a letter
with the court indicating that the first he had learned of the hearing
or the court order was in an email sent by his ex-wife about five weeks
after the hearing. In that letter and a subsequent letter, Client 1
informed the court that he had attempted without success to contact Fulk
multiple times and by multiple means, the order says.
Client 1 subsequently requested that the court vacate its
contempt order, remove Fulk from the case, and allow Client 1 to proceed
pro se. Client 1’s pro se efforts to obtain relief from the contempt
order were unsuccessful, and the court later reduced that order to a
civil judgment against Client 1 in the amount of $2,545.35. When the
Commission opened an investigation, Fulk failed to substantively respond
to the Commission’s demand for information or comply with a subpoena
duces tecum for Client 1’s file, the order says.
In Count 2, the order says that Fulk employed an assistant
from 2005 until the assistant quit in early 2018. During that time, the
order says Fulk withheld money for Social Security from assistant’s
earnings, but instead of depositing those sums with the federal
government, he instead converted those funds for his own personal use.
In late 2017, assistant received a Social Security
statement showing she had no earnings for any of the years she had
worked for Fulk. When assistant confronted Fulk about it, he promised he
would get it corrected, but Fulk never did. He also failed to respond
to the commission’s demand for information on the matter, the order
states.
Thus, the high court found Fulk violated the following Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct:
- 1.4(a)(3): Failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter;
- 3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules or an order of a court;
- 8.1(b): Knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority;
- 8.4(b): Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, and;
- 8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
“Respondent stole earnings from Assistant (his sole
employee) during the entire twelve plus years of her employment,
violating both state and federal criminal law in the process. Respondent
severely neglected Client’s case, resulting in financial detriment to
Client. Respondent has shown absolutely no remorse for, or insight into,
his misconduct. Respondent refused to cooperate with the Commission’s
investigations, has refused to meaningfully participate in these
disciplinary proceedings, and has filed no petition for review, brief on
sanction, or responsive brief in this Court. Under these circumstances,
and based on the record before us, we conclude that Respondent should
be disbarred,” the justices wrote Monday in a per curiam order.
The disbarment is effective immediately.
Fulk, who was admitted to the Indiana bar in 1995, shall
fulfill all the duties of a disbarred attorney under Admission and
Discipline Rule 23(26). The costs of the proceeding are assessed against
him.
Full Article & Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment