Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Keller

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided August 8, 2003No. 49S00-0006-DI-368, 98S00-0006-DI-369PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DISCIPLINARY ACTION

2Per curiam

By authorizing advertisements for their law firm that suggested insurance companies would settle claims merely because their firm represented the claimants, the respondents violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law. For this and another advertising violation, we find today that the respondents should be publicly reprimanded.

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission charged the respondents, James R. Keller and S. Jack Keller, with violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct as a result of television advertisements they authorized during 1999…

3Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Whittington v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Matter of PerrelloIndiana Supreme Court · 1979

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bauer v. ShepardDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2009
  2. Alvarado v. NagyIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. Indiana Professional Licensing Agency and Indiana State Board of Dentistry v. Irfan A. Atcha, D.D.S.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2016
  4. Brandon Foster v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)Indiana Court of Appeals · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API