Source : http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/prof_conduct/index.html#_Toc313019228

Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct

(a)    A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

***

Comment

[1]     Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense.

[3]    If a lawyer were obliged to report every violation of the Rules, the failure to report any violation would itself be a professional offense. Such a requirement existed in many jurisdictions but proved to be unenforceable. This Rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that a self-regulating profession must vigorously endeavor to prevent. A measure of judgment is, therefore, required in complying with the provisions of this Rule. The term “substantial” refers to the seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware. A report should be made to the bar disciplinary agency unless some other agency, such as a peer review agency, is more appropriate in the circumstances. Similar considerations apply to the reporting of judicial misconduct.

Rule 8.4. Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a)    violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b)    commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c)     engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d)    engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e)    state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

(f)     knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or

Comment

[1]     Lawyers are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so or do so through the acts of another, as when they request or instruct an agent to do so on the lawyer’s behalf. Paragraph (a), however, does not prohibit a lawyer from advising a client concerning action the client is legally entitled to take.

[2]    Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of offenses involving “moral turpitude.” That concept can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.

[3]    A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law.

All lawyers who just read the above in blue and know something about any illegal conduct of attorney in a law firm probably do not have the ground for a good faith defense.  Time to rat out your peers.   

Just recently…

Visitor	mail.burtblee.com	IP Address	64.141.139.214
Date	16 May, Wed, 14:08:06	Net Speed	Corporate/T1
Organization	Us Signal Company, L.l.c.	Browser	Internet Expl..

Visitor	vpn.bakerdaniels.com	IP Address	174.46.163.5
Date	16 May, Wed, 13:43:20	Net Speed	Corporate/T1
Organization	Baker & Daniels	Browser	Internet Expl..

Visitor	vpn.bakerdaniels.com	IP Address	174.46.163.5
Date	16 May, Wed, 13:27:09	Net Speed	Corporate/T1
Organization	Baker & Daniels	Browser	Internet Expl..

Visitor	vpn.bakerdaniels.com	IP Address	174.46.163.5
Date	16 May, Wed, 14:01:35	Net Speed	Corporate/T1
Organization	Baker & Daniels	Browser	Internet Expl..

Visitor	vpn.bakerdaniels.com	IP Address	174.46.163.5
Date	16 May, Wed, 14:16:36	Net Speed	Corporate/T1
Organization	Baker & Daniels	Browser	Internet Expl..

Visitor	vpn.bakerdaniels.com	IP Address	174.46.163.5
Date	16 May, Wed, 14:32:19	Net Speed	Corporate/T1
Organization	Baker & Daniels	Browser	Internet Expl..

Visitor	vpn.bakerdaniels.com	IP Address	174.46.163.5
Date	16 May, Wed, 14:47:49	Net Speed	Corporate/T1
Organization	Baker & Daniels	Browser	Internet Expl..

Visitor	vpn.bakerdaniels.com	IP Address	174.46.163.5
Date	16 May, Wed, 15:03:00	Net Speed	Corporate/T1
Organization	Baker & Daniels	Browser	Internet Expl..

This came in anonymously yesterday, from someone that claims to have once worked with Kuker.

I have only recently been informed of the existence of your site, so all I have been able to learn has been from the JG and from my source(s) who know the situation more intimately than I do, due to the passage of time.

I found out from your site that police had the home of Timothy Haffner under surveillance. This is very interesting to me. Here’s why:

(1) Haffner, as you probably know, serves as Fort Wayne’s “corporation counsel” – in other words, the city’s primary corporate attorney. I don’t believe that it is a paid position – by that I mean I don’t believe that Haffner is an employee of the city, formally – but it is a position of some prestige and carries with it the promise of significant compensation from FBD. The city work given, through Haffner, to FBD is enormous. Mayor Henry was a client of Baker & Daniels at one time, when he had his own business. Haffner was not the primary attorney on that file, but the original primary attorney retired years ago and since Haffner was indeed familiar with the work, and with Henry, it was sort of a natural fit. This is true even though Haffner was a very vocal supporter of Nelson Peters in the Republican primary the year Henry beat Matt Kelty. That in and of itself is interesting.

(2) At one time, Haffner and Kuker were inseparable friends. I heard Kuker describe them as “best friends”. And it was no exaggeration. The two spent all of their time together, at work and otherwise. Evidently there was a serious falling out between them.

(3) Haffner was, for a brief time, “managing partner” of the FW office of Baker & Daniels. A brief time. Something like 6 months to a year. An incredibly brief time, in context. The previous managing partner had been in the position for 20 years or so. Who succeeded Haffner as managing partner (that terminology evidently changed when Faegre entered the picture)? David Kuker. This might explain the “falling out” between them. I have no personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding either the obvious power struggle or of the basis for the falling out. But it’s very very interesting.

(4) On a tangent, Goeglein is up for partner this year – which means that he either has reason to get rid of Kuker (I don’t believe this part of it at all – by all accounts Goeglien gets most of his work from Kuker himself, meaning Kuker must be satisfied with Goeglein’s work and therefore his partnership would be safe) or, more likely, has reason to do as Kuker says. My theory is that Kuker knows who shot him – or, at least, who sent the shooter – and is trying to divert attention from the reason he was shot. If Kuker told Goeglein to shoot through his own window to make it look as though it is business-related, when in fact it’s related to Kuker’s affair(s), goeglein would be in a tight spot – not going along with it would tank his hopes for partnership, costing him millions of dollars over the length of his career. Kuker’s entire public image, and the reason he is successful, is based on his “Christianity” and his adherence to Christian principles – he’s on several boards of Christian organizations, you know. That explains his responses on this site. His entire fragile little world revolves around the public perception of him as a do-right kind of guy. He is, however, the most Machiavellian backstabber I have ever known, and the hint of scandal is more than he can put up with.

Which brings Haffner into the mix again, since Haffner has been the most visible victim of Kuker’s ruthlessness.

Someone really should get Haffner in a safe place and grill him. Others who might have some light to shed on the matter are David Irmscher, Robert Moreland, Jon Bomberger and several former attorneys at FBD, all of whom have crossed Kuker and paid for it. Oh – don’t forget the secretaries – they know everything. Kuker’s secretary undoubtedly knows about any affair(s) he might be having, or might have had.

I would like to see more attention paid to this, given the prominence of all players in the Fort Wayne business and political communities.

By Jim Sack

Jim Sack

Two men came to the table last night to present a financial plan as the first step toward a voluntary annexation which more than a few members of council saw as a Trojan Horse.

The matter goes like this: a financial plan detailing costs to we taxpayers associated with an annexation was presented by the city to council; the analysis is invariably accepted as the first step toward bringing a neighborhood or parcel into the city. The next steps are the hearings and presentations that almost always lead to a slightly larger Fort Wayne. But, more than a few council members saw a wolf in sheep’s clothing – essentially a businessman seeking annexation that would be coupled with a tax abatement. Linkage. A couple members considered that a cynical approach. And, the applicant, a dentist from Auburn, who also happens to be a council member there, through his mouthpiece, all but said he was seeking the annexation for bottom line business purposes – EMS service among them. We could go on about the million dollar complex, the employees that might be add, the unusual business model, etc, but suffice it to say that the phrase “tax abatements” now raises eyebrows and questions. The matter was tabled for a week. Read the rest of this entry »

This is the 1st floor street level window facing south, just east of Calhoun on Wayne in the same building that Faegre Baker Daniels law firm is located. It’s very close to the tenant signage that adorns the side of building, and has been there for at least a day or more.

You can see the reflection of Summit Square in the window. Maybe it was a BB gun?

Click to enlarge

The ad features Joe Soptic, former GST Steel employee, along with David Foster, former lead negotiator for GST Steel workers. They give a firsthand account of GST’s closure and the subsequent loss of 750 jobs.  “It was like a vampire. They came in and sucked the life out of us, said another worker.   Source   (Obama re-election campaign demonstrating bad timing on its use of metaphoricals.)

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings proclaimed , in the very same week …

COULD IT BE THAT NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING AND NAME CALLING HAS A DOWNSIDE???

Caveat:  Hey, Newsweek means Gay in policy, not personally, right?  Or was all of this orchestrated to take the sting out of several blackmailers’ threats?   An interesting question, is it not?  (Especially when one considers Van Jones’ comments a few weeks back:  http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2012/04/03/van-jones-even-if-obama-were-gay-hed-still-win-black-vote