Matter of Cartmel
Indiana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
2Per curiam
The Disciplinary Commission alleges that the respondent, Thomas 0. Cartmel, violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law. Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 11(c), the parties have now tendered for our approval a Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline, wherein they agree that the respondent engaged in misconduct and that he should be suspended from the practice of law for sixty (60) days. Having been admitted to this state’s bar in 1964, the respondent is subject to our disciplinary jurisdiction.
The…
3Cases cited1 opinion
- Matter of NewmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1996
4Cited by5 opinions
- In re MartinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- In Re WilsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1999
- In re Kenneth A. MartinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
- In re Kenneth A. MartinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
- In the Matter of Theodore D. WilsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1999