Legal Opinion

Matter of Myers

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1996No. 02S00-9504-DI-436PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DISCIPLINARY ACTION

2Per curiam

Respondent Harold W. Myers, an attorney admitted to practice in this state in 1970, has been charged with lawyer misconduct stemming from a fee dispute with a client pursuant to a contingency fee arrangement. The Disciplinary Commission and the respondent have submitted for our approval a Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline, pursuant to Ind. sion and Discipline Rule 28, Section l1(g) 1 In the proffered agreement, the parties agree that a public reprimand is an appropriate discipline for the respondent's actions. We now find that the parties'…

3Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co. of FrankfortIndiana Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Matter of SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Johnson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Cardenas v. Ramsey CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  5. Matter of GerardIndiana Supreme Court · 1994

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

4Cited by19 opinions

  1. Hoover Slovacek LLP v. WaltonTexas Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Galanis v. Lyons & TruittIndiana Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Levine v. Bayne, Snell & Krause, Ltd.Texas Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Matter of LehmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1997
  5. In Re HaileyIndiana Supreme Court · 2003

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

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

Powered by the Exa API