Clark County Circuit Court Judge Dan Moore was publicly reprimanded last week by the Indiana Supreme Court for his handling of a divorce case that began in 2004.
The court found that Moore — who became judge in January — violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules by charging an unreasonable fee and amending the fee agreement with his client without advising her in writing the desirability of seeking advice from independent counsel.
Moore said he was representing a woman who had been battered at the start of her divorce. He said the work, which lasted 2 1/2 years, included a premarital agreement, protective order case, interlocutory appeal work and advice and service on a criminal case against her husband.
“Documents pertaining to modifications in our agreement, in hindsight, did not meet technical requirements of Supreme Court Rules,” Moore said in a statement to The Evening News.
According to the Supreme Court ruling, Moore was retained by an unnamed client to represent her in a dissolution of marriage. The client paid Moore $15,000 that, according to an agreement, would be his “fixed” fee, the decision states.
In May 2005, Moore reportedly asked his client to pay an additional $5,000 and another $1,500 in April 2006.
The Supreme Court Disciplinary Committee found that Moore never advised his client to consult with independent counsel before agreeing to amend the fee to his advantage.
“I made a mistake in not tracking those requirements more clearly in the midst of my work on those cases,” Moore said. “I respect the final resolution of these matters by the Supreme Court.”
The court found also stated that Moore had no disciplinary history and was cooperative with the commission. It states that Moore worked “diligently and competently” on the case.
Six of seven justices concurred with the decision to reprimand Moore. Justice Brent E. Dickson dissented, arguing that Moore should face a period of suspension without any evidence Moore refunded the additional $6,500 paid by the client.
Moore will have to pay any costs for the Supreme Court proceedings.
Clark County
Related Photos
Discussion
Clark Judge Moore reprimanded for fees charged as attorney
Supreme Court found Moore charged too much, changed agreement as attorney
-
-
Jeffersonville mayor, council disagree on hiring
Moore said he would veto the legislation, but include a recommendation that the three already hired positions be funded. Zastawny said the council would consider that recommendation.
Continued ... -
GCCS OKs modified balanced calendar
The calendar for 2012-2013 closely follows the calendar adopted by the New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation for the same year.
Continued ... - News and Tribune briefs for Feb. 8, 2012
-
House panel leader leery of creationism bill
Supporters in the Senate, which approved the bill last week in a 28-22 vote, say the broader religious reference improves the bill’s chances of being ruled constitutional.
Continued ... -
Statehouse action resumes after Super Bowl break
Daniels wants legislators to concede to some more of his wish-list items as they head toward their mandatory March 14 deadline for the session’s end.
Continued ... -
Prosser hosts heated competition
-
Clarksville decides to rethink bridge project
“Anytime you have a traffic light, you have a built-in safety concern,” Gilkey said after the meeting. “Sooner or later, someone’s going to go through it."
Continued ... - Four more arrests made in Jeffersonville shooting case
-
Vissing Park construction over budget by $2M
“I don’t even know if there was ever a working budget” that included the $2 million figure, Parks and Recreation Director Paul Northam said. “I think it’s basically a guesstimate.”
Continued ... -
Half of Jeffersonville Fire Department overtime budget already gone
During the closing moments of the meeting Councilman Matt Owen said he was shocked by Mayor Moore’s plans and comments pertaining to two Jeffersonville Parks and Recreation Department matters reported in the News and Tribune during the last week.
Continued ...
-
Jeffersonville mayor, council disagree on hiring
