KEEPING THE HAITH
In the interest of full disclosure, I admit to stealing that title from a local blog. But as the old saying goes, good bloggers borrow, but great ones steal. But I digress.
City-County Council Attorney Aaron Haith is about to revisit his past and return to a place he’s been before, appearing in front of the disciplinary wing of the Indiana Supreme Court for alleged conduct unbecoming an attorney.
The last time Haith was disciplined it was in 2001 for his drinking problem. Haith had been convicted twice of driving while intoxicated and the Supreme Court found “he engaged in criminal acts reflecting adversely on his fitness as a lawyer in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law.” Haith had his license suspended for a year.
This time Haith will find himself back before the Supreme Court for alleged conflicts of interests involving his position as both the attorney for the City-County Council and as the personal attorney for Council President Monroe Gray.
Two ethics complaints have been filed against him with the Court’s disciplinary commission. One was filed by members of the City-County Council, the other by private citizens.
In the Council’s complaint they allege Haith violated the Court’s rules against representing two clients by (in his capacity as Council Attorney) blocking an ethics investigation of Gray, who he represents privately. The Republicans argue that Haith should have recused himself from the matter as he represents both parties.
In the second complaint filed by private citizens, they allege Haith has allowed the Council to engage in unethical behavior when Gray voted on a procedural matter which resulted in the blocking of his ethics investigation.
They also alleged Haith violated the rules of professional conduct by representing Councilor Ron Gibson as his defense attorney when Gibson was accused of shoving an officer and also as the attorney for the Council which approves the department’s budget.
Both these complaints were filed without knowledge of the other party. The Commission must still decide if a hearing is warranted. If the case has a hearing and the Commission finds Haith has acted unprofessionally, the Court has four options it can exercise against Haith if it finds he acted unethically. It can issue a private or public reprimand, suspend him from practice for a set period of time; suspend him from practice with reinstatement only after the lawyer proves fitness, or permanently disbar him from practicing law.
The last time Haith was before the Disciplinary Commission he got suspension and probation. This time, in light of recent events down at the City-County building, he may not be so lucky.
