IN RE: Olubunmi O. OKANLAMI (2023)

Published Order Revoking Probation and Imposing Suspension

This Court entered an order accepting Respondent's resignation on January 10, 2013. Respondent petitioned for reinstatement in 2019 and, following an evidentiary hearing, this Court issued an order on January 8, 2021 conditionally reinstating Respondent subject to successful completion of at least two years of probation with monitoring by the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (“JLAP”). Respondent's probation remains in effect.

On January 20, 2023, the Commission filed a verified motion to revoke Respondent's probation, asserting that Respondent has materially violated the terms of her JLAP monitoring agreement in numerous respects. Further, Respondent has had multiple criminal cases initiated against her in recent months, none of which she reported to JLAP as required; one of these cases has resulted in a guilty plea and the others remain pending. Respondent has filed no response to the Commission's motion despite having been granted an extension of time, and her failure to do so is deemed an admission of the Commission's allegations. See Admis. Disc. R. 23(16)(c)(2).

Being duly advised, the Court GRANTS the motion and revokes Respondent's probationary reinstatement to the practice of law. Respondent's suspension without automatic reinstatement is reimposed, beginning May 22, 2023. Respondent shall not undertake any new legal matters between service of this order and the effective date of the suspension, and Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). 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, 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.

All Justices concur.