Legal Opinion

In Re Allen

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided February 9, 2004No. 49S00-0111-DI-613, 45S00-0209-DI-502PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Disciplinary Action

2Per curiam

Attorneys who, during the course of a representation, receive settlements funds in which a third party has an undisputed legal interest are obligated promptly to deliver those funds to the third party. If entitlement to settlement funds is disputed, an attorney must hold the disputed funds in a separate account until the dispute is resolved.

The Disciplinary Commission has charged respondent attorneys Michael E. Allen and Patrick W. Young with attorney misconduct arising out of factually similar but unrelated incidents involving failure to deliver settlement funds to a third…

3Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In the Matter of KirbyIndiana Supreme Court · 2002
  2. In Re NormanIndiana Supreme Court · 1999
  3. In the Matter of AlvarezIndiana Supreme Court · 2001

4Cited by7 opinions

  1. Yorgan v. DurkinWisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Douglas C. Holland v. Indiana Farm Bureau InsuranceIndiana Court of Appeals · 2018
  3. In Re CassadyIndiana Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against BarrockWisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against BarrockWisconsin Supreme Court · 2007

2 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