IN RE: William P. GREENAWAY, Respondent
Published Order Revoking Probation and Imposing Suspension
On December 4, 2020, in Case No. 19S-JD-165, this Court entered an order approving a conditional agreement permanently banning Respondent from judicial service and suspending him from the practice of law for one year, with 90 days actively served and the remainder stayed subject to completing at least two years’ probation with monitoring by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. The agreement provides that if probation is revoked, the stay of his suspension is subject to being vacated and may be ordered actively served with or without automatic reinstatement.
On April 5, 2021, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications (JQC) filed a verified motion to revoke probation, asserting multiple violations of the terms of Respondent's probation. Those allegations were deemed admitted when Respondent failed to timely respond, and he admitted them expressly in a later pleading. On April 23, we ordered Respondent suspended on an interim basis and invited the parties to file briefs addressing sanction, which they have done.
Being duly advised, the Court GRANTS the JQC's motion and revokes Respondent's probation. Respondent shall be suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than 180 days, without automatic reinstatement, beginning April 23, 2021. 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 fulfills the duties of a suspended attorney 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).
Because the judicial discipline component of this case has concluded, the Court further directs that any future matters involving Respondent's suspension from the practice of law, including a petition for reinstatement, be filed in Case No. 20S-DI-627, and that the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission serve as the disciplinary body responsible for initiating or responding to any such matters.
All Justices concur.
Was this helpful?