Skip to main content

IN RE: Adam M. DULIK (2023)

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court of Indiana.

IN RE: Adam M. DULIK, Respondent

Supreme Court Case No. 22S-DI-368

Decided: January 12, 2023

Published Order Approving Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline

Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(12.1)(b), the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” stipulating agreed facts and proposed discipline as summarized below.

Stipulated Facts: “Client” hired Respondent to represent her and her daughter in a personal injury lawsuit. Over the next several months, Respondent failed to respond to multiple Client inquiries about the status of the claim, communicate with third parties relevant to the claim, obtain relevant records and documentation, file a lawsuit on Client's behalf, and acknowledge that Client had terminated him as her attorney.

Violation: The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct:

1.1: Failing to provide competent representation;

1.3: Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness;

1.4: Failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and respond promptly to reasonable requests for information, and failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions;

1.16(a): Failing to withdraw from representation when the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; and

1.16(d): Failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation.

Discipline: The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, now approves the following agreed discipline.

For Respondent's professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law for a period of 60 days, beginning on the date of this order, all stayed subject to completion of at least one year of probation with JLAP monitoring. The Court incorporates by reference the terms and conditions of probation set forth in the parties’ Conditional Agreement, which include among other things the parties’ agreement that any violation of probation may result in the balance of Respondent's suspension being actively served with or without automatic reinstatement.

Notwithstanding the expiration of the minimum term of probation set forth above, Respondent's probation shall remain in effect until it is terminated pursuant to a petition to terminate probation filed under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(16).

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

All Justices concur.

Copied to clipboard