On Wednesday, November 2, 2022, the Indiana Supreme Court opined on the attorney discipline action against Respondent Indianapolis attorney Ralph W. Staples.
The case titled In the Matter of Ralph W. Staples was brought by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, case no. 21S-DI-476.
The charges cited violations of the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules specifically rules 1.5(e): Failing to obtain a client’s approval of a fee decision between lawyers who are not in the same firm; 3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules or an order of a court; 8.1(a): Knowingly making a false statement of material fact to the Disciplinary Commission in connection with a disciplinary matter; and 8.1(b): Failing to respond in a timely manner to the Commission’s demands for information.
According to the filing:
“In October 2018, Respondent was hired to represent“Client,” who was facing criminal charges for a domestic battery incident that also prompted related paternity and Child in Need of Services (CHINS) proceedings. Based on a referral, Client and his mother met with Respondent’s office manager to hire Respondent. Respondent did not attend the meeting. At the meeting, Client requested that Respondent exclusively represent him in all three cases, and Client’s mother agreed to pay a total of $11,500—an initial $2,500 retainer fee and monthly installments thereafter. The parties did not execute a contract, retainer agreement, or any other written instrument. Additionally, the parties did not agree, in writing or otherwise, that any other attorney would represent Client or that Respondent would divide his legal fees with anyone. Following the meeting, neither Client nor his mother received a retention or engagement letter.”
The filing continues:
“Respondent filed an appearance in Client’s criminal case, as did solo practitioner Matthew Draving, who shared office space with Respondent but with whom Respondent had no official firm affiliation or partnership. When Respondent failed to appear at a January 2019 pretrial conference, Client contacted Respondent’s office and Draving was sent to represent Client. Draving again appeared at Client’s deposition instead of respondent. Days after the deposition, Respondent filed a motion to withdraw, which the trial court granted. Respondent never directly spoke with Client about his case or appeared in court on Client’s behalf.”
The filing additionally notes:
“By the time Respondent withdrew, Client’s mother had paid him $4,300, $1,148 of which Respondent had paid to Draving without consent from Client or his mother. Client’s mother requested a full refund from Respondent but never received one. So, Client’s mother sued Respondentin case number 49D11-1911-CC-46864 (“Refund Case”).
Respondent never answered the complaint, and default judgment was entered against him. Following the default judgment, the trial court ordered Respondent to produce financial documents, but respondent did not comply with the court’s order or appear at the show cause hearing meant to address his failure. The trial court found Respondent in contempt and awarded Client’s mother attorney’s fees. Respondent has yet to pay the ordered judgment and fees.”
Following a final hearing held on March 2022, the hearing officer of the Disciplinary Commission issued a report finding Respondent violated all four rules and recommended an 18-month suspension without automatic reinstatement. In addition, the hearing officer also recommended that reinstatement will be conditioned upon Respondent’s satisfaction with the judgment entered against him.
Neither party opposed the hearing officer’s report.
The Indiana Supreme Court concurred with the hearing officer’s findings of fact and concluded that Respondent violated the Rules as charged.
In concluding the appropriate discipline for Respondent’s conduct, the Court notes:
“In this case, Respondent made no meaningful effort to represent Client. Not only did he foist representation of Client on an unaffiliated attorney without Client’s knowledge or assent, but for three years he has refused to refund Client the fees he collected but did not earn—even after judgment was entered against him in a separate lawsuit. Respondent’s obstinance and dishonesty continued during these disciplinary proceedings, during which he made false statement to the Commission, missed a hearing, disregarded orders from the hearing officer, and generally continued his patterns of noncooperation.”
Accordingly, the Court suspended Respondent from the practice of law in the State of Indiana for a period of not less than one year, without reinstatement, to begin on December 6, 2022.
Costs of the proceedings were assessed against Respondent.
As of today, Mr. Ralph W. Staples, Jr. holds his law office and practices in Indianapolis, Indiana. He attended the IndianaUniversity School of Law. He has been licensed in Illinois. His bio can be found on the Law Offices of Ralph W. Staples, Jr. website.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
