I object, your Honor...This trial is a sham. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of two travesties of a mockery of a sham. I demand a mistrial. Do you realize that there is not one homosexual on the Jury? Judge: Yes, there is. Fielding: Really? Which guy is it, the big guy on the end?
Quote:
In the
Indiana Supreme Court
IN THE MATTER OF )
) Case No. 45S00-0506-DI-287
J. ROBERT VEGTER, II )
ORDER APPROVING STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES
AND CONDITIONAL AGREEMENT FOR DISCIPLINE
Pursuant to Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 11, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and the respondent have submitted for approval a Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline stipulating agreed facts and proposed discipline as summarized below:
Facts: On September 22, 2004, police arrested respondent for possession of marijuana, as a Class D felony. A search of respondent's residence disclosed two marijuana plants, a hydroponics unit, a receipt for a grow light and remnants of a marijuana plant in respondent’s garbage disposal. The marijuana found exceeded 30 grams.
What a lousy lawyer. Why would he allow the police in his home? OR did they dig through his garbage, obtain a warrant based on stems found in his garbage then search his home when he wasn't there?
Quote:
On December 13, 2004,
respondent pled guilty to possession as a Class A misdemeanor and received 365 days in jail with all but time served suspended, plus one year unsupervised probation.
Yes, fellow BAR member, we shall look after you.
Quote:
Violations: Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b), which prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
Discipline: Public Reprimand.
I do not see where this falls under this Professional Conduct Rule classification.
Quote:
The Court, having considered the submission of the parties, now APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline. In mitigation we note respondent’s remorse, cooperation with the Commission, lack of disciplinary action since his admission in 1970 and completion of intensive substance abuse counseling and therapy.
Oh yeah, we all know how well these drug programs work.
Quote:
Therefore, we publicly reprimand respondent for his misconduct. Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent. The Court further finds that with the acceptance of this agreement the hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged.
OH, THE HUMANITY!
Quote:
The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the hearing officer and in accordance with the provisions of Admis.Disc.R. 23, Section 3(d).
DONE at Indianapolis, Indiana, this _______ day of October, 2005.
________________________
Randall T. Shepard
Chief Justice of Indiana
SHEPARD, C.J. and SULLIVAN, BOEHM and RUCKER, JJ., concur.
DICKSON, J., dissents and would impose a suspension without automatic reinstatement.
###################################
Justice Brent E. Dickson
(One hundredth Justice)
Brent E. Dickson was appointed as the 100th Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court on January 4, 1986, after seventeen years as a general practice and trial lawyer in Lafayette, Indiana. As a lawyer, he was certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.
Born in Gary, Indiana, in 1941, he was educated at public schools in Hobart, Indiana; Purdue University (B.S. 1964); and Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis (J.D. 1968).
He is co-founder of the
Sagamore Chapter of the American Inns of Court1 in Indianapolis, a member of the American Law Institute, a registered mediator, and active in various national, state, and local judicial and bar organizations. Justice Dickson has also taught an evening course as an adjunct professor at Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington.
Justice Dickson and his wife have three adult sons and five grandchildren.
#############################################
Beginning in the late 1970's, U.S. Chief Justice Warren Burger led a movement to create
Inns of Court in the United States. Although they are loosely modeled after the traditional English Inns, American Inns of Court do not include any real property. Instead, they are groups of judges, practicing attorneys, law professors and students who meet regularly to discuss and debate issues relating to legal ethics and professionalism. American Inn of Court meetings typically consist of a shared meal and a program presented by one of the Inn's pupillage teams. Chief Justice Burger and others established the American Inns of Court Foundation in 1985 to promote and charter Inns of Court across the United States.
Login
FAQ
Search
