Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Robert Wayne GRAY, Petitioner
Published Order Granting Conditional Reinstatement to the Practice of Law
On October 4, 2022, this Court suspended Petitioner for not less than 90 days without automatic reinstatement. Matter of Gray, 194 N.E.3d 1122 (Ind. 2022). Petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement on April 19, 2024. After a hearing, the hearing officer issued a report on April 30, 2025, recommending Petitioner be conditionally reinstated. The Commission has petitioned for review, and both parties have filed responsive briefs.
A petition for reinstatement may be granted only if the petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence that:
(1) The petitioner desires in good faith to obtain restoration of his privilege to practice law;
(2) The petitioner has not practiced law in this State or attempted to do so since he was disciplined;
(3) The petitioner has complied fully with the terms of the order for discipline;
(4) The petitioner's attitude towards the misconduct for which he was disciplined is one of genuine remorse;
(5) The petitioner's conduct since the discipline was imposed has been exemplary and above reproach;
(6) The petitioner has a proper understanding of and attitude towards the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will conduct himself in conformity with these standards;
(7) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an officer of the courts; and
(8) The disability has been removed, if the discipline was imposed by reason of disability.
Admis. Disc. R. 23(18)(b)(3).
This Court, being duly advised, finds that the hearing officer's recommendation should be accepted and that Petitioner should be conditionally reinstated as a member of the Indiana bar and placed on probation for a period of no less than three years. The terms and conditions of probation shall include:
(1) Petitioner shall continue receiving medical and therapeutic treatment as recommended by his treatment provider(s).
(2) Petitioner, who already is under a voluntary monitoring agreement with the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (“JLAP”), shall remain under a long-term monitoring agreement for the duration of his probation.
(3) Petitioner shall provide a copy of his JLAP monitoring agreement to the Commission. In addition, Petitioner shall sign or update any and all authorizations necessary for JLAP to implement the monitoring agreement, including an authorization for the Commission to obtain information from JLAP, and return a copy of that authorization to the Commission within 15 days of this order.
(4) If Petitioner violates his probation, the Commission may petition the Court to revoke his probation and re-impose a suspension without automatic reinstatement.
Notwithstanding the expiration of the minimum term of probation set forth above, Petitioner's probation shall remain in effect until it is terminated pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(16).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's petition for reinstatement is granted and that Petitioner is conditionally reinstated as a member of the Indiana bar subject to the terms and conditions of probation stated above. Petitioner shall pay any costs owing under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(21)(b). The hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged with the Court's deep appreciation for his exceptional work.
All Justices concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Supreme Court Case No. 21S-DI-44
Decided: August 19, 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)