Indiana is exploring innovative ways to expand legal services through alternatives to traditional law firms, following the path of other U.S. states that have implemented regulatory reforms in the legal industry. A recent order from the Indiana Supreme Court has moved the state closer to adopting a “legal regulatory sandbox,” a framework that allows for the testing of new legal service models.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Creation of a Legal Regulatory Sandbox

In a move that could reshape how legal services are delivered in Indiana, the Indiana Supreme Court has directed a court-created innovation committee to develop parameters for a legal regulatory sandbox by March 1. This initiative follows a July report by a court-appointed commission that proposed various solutions to tackle the shortage of lawyers in the state. The commission recommended creating a sandbox program to foster innovation and improve access to legal services.

Addressing Indiana’s Attorney Shortage

The shortage of lawyers in Indiana is a pressing issue. According to data from the American Bar Association, Indiana ranks among the bottom ten states in the nation, with only 2.3 attorneys per 1,000 residents. The July report, which included 27 interim recommendations, emphasized the need for creative solutions to address this shortage, including seeking funding to support the sandbox initiative.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Encouraging Non-Traditional Law Firms

One of the commission’s notable recommendations is to provide grant funding to law firms that adopt a non-profit business model. This would help increase access to legal services for individuals with moderate financial means. The state’s Supreme Court has responded by ordering the development of a framework to fund these types of initiatives.

Learning from Other States’ Legal Reforms

Indiana’s exploration of a regulatory sandbox is influenced by similar programs in other states. Utah, for example, launched a sandbox program in 2020, allowing businesses to experiment with non-traditional legal service models. This program relaxed certain regulations, such as allowing non-lawyers to have financial stakes in law firms. Arizona has also been a leader in legal reform, becoming the first state in 2020 to eliminate rules that barred non-lawyers from holding ownership in law firms.

Potential Benefits and Concerns

Proponents of these regulatory changes argue that allowing non-lawyers and entrepreneurs to invest in legal services can drive innovation, lower costs, and improve access to justice. However, critics warn that relaxing rules may lead to ethical violations if service providers are not held to the same professional standards as licensed attorneys. The debate is ongoing in states like Washington, where a proposal to relax similar regulations has sparked mixed reactions.

Other States’ Progress and Setbacks

While Utah and Arizona have made significant strides, not all states have successfully embraced these changes. California and Florida have faced pushback from the legal community, stalling similar reform efforts. Meanwhile, Arizona’s program has grown rapidly, with over 100 approved businesses, including well-known companies like Rocket Lawyer and LegalZoom. Utah’s program has also expanded, with 43 authorized entities as of June 2023, and is set to run until at least August 2027.

Future of Legal Services in Indiana

As Indiana moves toward potentially embracing alternative models for delivering legal services, it joins a growing number of states looking to modernize the legal profession. Whether the state will fully implement a legal regulatory sandbox remains to be seen, but the initiative marks a significant step toward addressing the legal service gap in the state.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Indiana Takes Steps to Reform Legal Services Delivery first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Indiana attorney Joseph M. Johnson III was suspended from practicing law for at least one year after repeatedly harassing an ex-girlfriend.

A public defender from northern Indiana accused of repeatedly harassing an ex-girlfriend was suspended by the Indiana Bar Association. Joseph M. Johnson III will not be allowed to practice law for at least one year.

Johnson, married, was the chief public defender for Adams County. He began an affair with “Jane Doe” seven years ago but it ended after several months. The two met for dinner once again in March of 2014. During the dinner, Johnson claimed to Doe that his wife was leaving him. After the dinner, he repeatedly called her but she kept telling him she was not interested in a relationship. He did not care or listen and kept calling her. During one call to Doe, Johnson was crying and a gun could be heard shooting several rounds off.

He continued calling, texting and Facebook messaging her, even showing up at her apartment. A No Trespass Order was issued by the police against Johnson but it did not stop him. He still called her and even started reaching out to her roommate to get in contact with her. When police intervened again, warning Johnson to stop all efforts of communication with her, he threatened to have her children taken away and use her probation officer to get her in more trouble.

Once he appeared at her apartment when her children were present, Doe was able to get a protective order against him. He fired back by going to her probation officer and saying she had violated her probation. This was actually true because she had a glass of wine at the dinner she had with Johnson before and her probation for operating while intoxicated prohibited her from drinking. She was given a ten-day sentence.

Eventaully the Indiana State Police were brought into the case. He was found guilty of one count of trespass and placed on informal probation. He was ordered to never contact Doe but he saw one of her friends at the courthouse and lured her into his office to quiz the friend about Doe’s living and romantic situations. He used any new information to track her down at her new residence, driving to the location on multiple occasions in May 2015.

The hearing officer in his case told the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission that he suffered from a progression of mental illness involving depression, manic episodes and bipolar disorder. He argued that since he suffered from mental illness, any sanctions imposed by the Indiana Supreme Court would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The court replied, “We agree with the hearing officer that, while some of the Respondent’s actions can be traced to manic episodes he was experiencing, other actions committed by Responded as part of his long-running pattern of misconduct involving J.D. occurred during periods when Respondent was receiving treatment and the symptoms of his mental illness had somewhat abated.”

Johnson was accused of breaking the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct part b, d, and e. The Indiana Supreme Court agreed with the charges and suspended his license for at least one year without automatic reinstatement to start June 28.

Do you think mental illness is a valid excuse for misconduct? Tell us in the comments below.

To learn more about attorneys with harassment problems, read these articles:

• Grant Griffith Sarbinoff Arrested and Charged with Stalking
• Attorney Permanently Disbarred for Grievous Behavior
• Attorney Found Guilty of Harassment in Ear Licking Case

Cover Photo: sweeneylawpa.com

Johnson Photo: djzbalaw.com

The post Attorney Joseph M. Johnson III Suspended for Harassment first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The circulation of a nude scene seemingly featuring a former co-worker led to one Indiana attorney’s suspension for three years. Arthur J. Usher, a former partner at Bose, McKinney & Evans, LLP, attempted to ridicule both Bose and their newest hire by sending a R-rated clip from a horror film in which the new hire had acted to the a wide swath of Indiana attorneys. Usher was sentenced to a three year suspension for practicing law by the Indiana Supreme Court, for what justices said was a “mean-spirited and vindictive attempt to embarrass and harm” an attorney who had rejected his romantic advances.

While Usher was a partner at Bose, Suzanna Hartzell-Baird joined the firm as an intern. Usher worked with Hartzell-Baird, and attempted to start a romantic relationship with her, which she resisted. After Hartzell-Baird was hired as an attorney at the firm, Usher discovered that she had acted in a low-budget horror movie in which she seemed to appear nude. Though Hartzell-Baird actually did not appear nude through the use of a body-double, Usher shared the clip with other attorneys at the firm under the pretense that it was indeed the firm’s new hire.

The Wall Street Journal reports that when Hartzell-Baird learned that Usher was showing the clip to other attorneys in the office, she threatened him with a restraining order. Later, Usher worked with a paralegal to create a fake message board posting that included the video clip, and sent it to more than fifty attorneys throughout Indiana with the subject line “Bose means Snuff Porn Film Business.”

Hartzell-Baird filed a grievance with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and also sued Usher. The lawsuit was settled, and the commission ruled that Usher committed attorney misconduct by engaging in a pervasive pattern of dishonesty and misrepresentation, and he is now barred from practicing In Indiana for the next three years. Usher left Bose around the time that email was sent, and since the lawsuit and complaint were filed, was let go from his subsequent position.

“I’m happy that the interest of justice was served,” Hartzell-Baird told the Wall Street Journal.

The post Horror Film Role Becomes Real-Life Horror for Young Attorney first appeared on JDJournal Blog.