Lawyer who criticized judge's 'stubbornly injudicious attitude' is suspended
A lawyer in Merrillville, Indiana, has been suspended for criticizing a judge’s “stubbornly injudicious attitude” and allegedly threatening opposing counsel with a disciplinary complaint unless there was an agreement to change venue.
The lawyer, Michael Halpin, made an unsuccessful run for town judge in 2011, NWI.com reports. In an order (PDF) last Tuesday, the Indiana Supreme Court imposed a 60-day suspension, without automatic reinstatement.
Halpin’s actions stemmed from his representation of a mother in a paternity and custody case in 2012 and 2013. Halpin accused the lawyer for the father of arranging venue in Tippecanoe County by fraud, deceit and trickery, and threatened to file a disciplinary complaint unless the lawyer agreed to transfer venue to Lake County, the order alleged.
Halpin also claimed the father had stolen from his client, but said no criminal charges would be filed if there was an agreement to change venue, according to the order. He also wrote to the opposing lawyer that “your possibly homophobic, racist, sexist clients should not be using the courts to further that agenda,” the state supreme court said.
In a motion filed in April 2014, Halpin said the judge who denied the change of venue had a “stubbornly injudicious attitude” toward the court proceeding, and the judge was “taking off on detours and frolics that ignore the fact that there are laws in Indiana that the court is supposed to follow and uphold.”
The order said Halpin’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and he had acted in an offensive manner.
In an interview with the ABA Journal, Halpin said his client had sickle cell anemia, used a wheelchair, and lived with her son about 100 miles away from Tippecanoe County. A change of venue was important, he said.
He said many of his comments cited in the opinion were taken out of context. He didn’t actually accuse opposing counsel of fraud, deceit and trickery, for example, because he is careful to use the word “possibly” before making allegations and to say it looks as if this is what happened.
He also said his assertion about opposing counsel’s “possibly homophobic” clients concerned his suspicions that the father’s family was responsible for unfounded complaints filed with child protective services suggesting that his client’s gay brother was molesting the child.
“I’ve been an attorney for 30 years. I’ve never had a disciplinary complaint filed against me,” Halpin said. “So my 30 years of ethical conduct and representing clients fairly didn’t mean squat to the Indiana Supreme Court.”
Halpin also criticized the opinion for considering his lack of remorse as an aggravating factor. “How can I have genuine remorse if I’m in a hearing where I’m contesting that I did anything wrong?” he asked. “It’s actually an absurdity if you think about it.”
“As far as I’m concerned I’m suspended for the rest of my life because I’m not going to have genuine remorse.”
