In Re Watson
Indiana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
2Per curiam
By drafting for his client codicils that Respondent Joe F. Watson knew or should have known had the potential of providing a substantial gift to himself and his mother, the respondent engaged in an impermissible conflict of interest. We find today that the respondent’s actions violate the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law. For those violations, the respondent and the Disciplinary Commission agree that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for sixty days. That agreement is now before us for final approval.
Our jurisdiction in this case…
3Cited by7 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BrookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- In Re Disciplinary Action Against BoulgerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. BoulgerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- In Re LevyIndiana Supreme Court · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.