In the Matter of John A. Kindley, Respondent
Other titles I considered for this post were “The $200 Disciplinary Complaint” and “The $18,000 Disciplinary Complaint,” for reasons made clear below. I settled on the above title because I want it to be found by people searching my name. Transcribed below are the facts contained in the “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” that formed the basis for the “only” discipline for attorney misconduct I’ve received in my professional career “thus far.” [Plenty of attorneys go through life without collecting any. I'm not expecting to collect any more, unless I do something resembling this or this.]
The disciplinary complaint from which this discipline originated was filed by a judge in a neighboring county before whom I had never previously appeared. The Indiana Disciplinary Commission had initially recommended to the Indiana Supreme Court, following a conditional agreement I signed, that these facts warranted an “administrative reprimand,” the mildest discipline available. The Supreme Court rejected this sanction as inadequate, so the Disciplinary Commission then recommended (again, following a conditional agreement I signed) a private reprimand. This was accepted by the Supreme Court.
As I recall my conversation with an attorney at the Disciplinary Commission, she informed me that the difference between an administrative reprimand and a private reprimand is that a private reprimand, although “private”, would result in a published decision and would be publicly available in some fashion. That didn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, but I didn’t investigate all the nuances because I wasn’t planning to fight the charges. I asked her whether the facts underlying the private reprimand would be included in whatever was made publicly available, and expressed the hope that they would be. I thought she told me that they would, but maybe I misunderstood or didn’t ask the question the right way, because I subsequently learned that’s not the case. If you look me up on the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, it simply indicates that I have been “the subject of a professional disciplinary proceeding at least once in the past.” If you look me up on Google Scholar, on the first page of results there’s the Indiana Supreme Court’s published order that I be given a private reprimand, but with no indication of the facts on which the private reprimand was based.
So without further ado, in the interests of full disclosure and as a public service, here are those Facts to which I and the Disciplinary Commission agreed:
1. John A. Kindley (“respondent”) is an attorney in good standing, having been duly admitted to the practice of law in the state of Indiana on December 27, 2002.
2. The respondent maintains a law office in Lakeville, Indiana.
3. In the spring of 2006, respondent undertook representation of _____, who was charged with misdemeanor driving while suspended in _____ County Superior Court.
4. _____ and respondent agreed upon a flat fee of $500.00 for representation unless the case proceeded to trial.
5. _____ paid respondent $200.00 and promised to pay respondent the rest when she received her next paycheck.
6. Respondent appeared with _____ at a hearing on May 15, 2006, and entered his appearance at that time.
7. Respondent negotiated a plea agreement with the _____ County Prosecutor’s office, and communicated the terms of the offer to _____.
8. _____ indicated her intention to accept the terms of the agreement at the following hearing scheduled for June 15, 2006.
9. _____ informed respondent that she did not have any funds with which to pay the outstanding fee balance by the date promised, and respondent informed her she could dismiss him as her counsel and proceed pro se.
10. _____ chose not to proceed pro se and again promised the remaining balance would be paid by the date of the hearing.
11. _____ did not pay the balance and did not return respondent’s telephone messages.
12. Respondent did not withdraw his appearance and failed to appear for the June 15, 2006, hearing, giving no notice to the court or his client of his intention not to attend.
13. _____ County Superior Court Judge _____ ordered respondent and _____ to attend a subsequent hearing scheduled for August 3, 2006.
14. Two weeks prior to the August 3, 2006, hearing respondent was awarded a seat at the World Series of Poker held in Las Vegas, which he chose to attend.
15. On July 27, 2006, respondent sent Judge _____ a letter essentially asking to be withdrawn from the case and explaining the situation surrounding his trip to Las Vegas.
16. Judge _____ did not read the July 27, 2006 letter until after the August 3, 2006, hearing.
17. Respondent did not appear at the August 3, 2006, hearing as he was still in Las Vegas playing in the tournament, from which he was not eliminated until August 4, 2006. [I won close to $18,000.]
18. Respondent did not inform the court or his client that he would not be present at the August 3, 2006, hearing. [The client wouldn't answer her phone and moved without giving me her new address.]
19. _____ pled guilty on August 3, 2006, according to the originally negotiated plea agreement.
