IN RE: Dean E. MCCONNELL (2025)

Published Order Finding Misconduct and Imposing Discipline

Upon review of the report of the hearing officer, the Honorable Brian D. Hill, who was appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission's “Disciplinary Complaint,” the Court finds that Respondent engaged in professional misconduct and imposes discipline on Respondent.

Facts: In February 2023, pursuant to a guilty plea, Respondent was convicted in Anderson City Court of operating a vehicle while intoxicated (“OWI”), a misdemeanor. Respondent failed to report this conviction in writing to the Commission. Respondent has prior convictions for OWI and public intoxication and has been disciplined before. Matter of McConnell, 11 N.E.3d 902 (Ind. 2014). He failed to appear for pretrial and final hearings in this case, and he is currently suspended for noncooperation in a different case. Matter of McConnell, 246 N.E.3d 805 (Ind. 2024).

Violations: The Court finds that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b), which prohibits committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on Respondent's trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer, and Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11.1)(a)(1)(ii), which requires an attorney found guilty of a crime to notify the Commission.

Discipline: For Respondent's professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than one year, without automatic reinstatement, effective immediately. At the conclusion of the minimum period of suspension, Respondent may petition this Court for reinstatement to the practice of law in this state, provided Respondent pays the costs of this proceeding, fulfills the duties of a suspended attorney, cures the causes of all suspensions then in effect, and satisfies the requirements for reinstatement of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18). Reinstatement is discretionary and requires clear and convincing evidence of the attorney's remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law. See Admis. Disc. R. 23(18)(b).

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. The hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged with the Court's appreciation.

All Justices concur.