In the legal profession, integrity is non-negotiable, and cooperating with disciplinary authorities is a fundamental duty. When an attorney refuses to acknowledge or respond to a formal ethics grievance, the resulting sanction is swift, certain, and often permanent.
The case of Indiana attorney Alger V. Boswell III demonstrates this principle perfectly. His disciplinary fate was sealed not by the original, underlying grievance (Grievance No. 23-0656), but by his absolute failure to cooperate with the investigation—a violation that the Indiana Supreme Court treats with the utmost severity.
The Unforgivable Offense: Noncooperation
The disciplinary process is designed to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the justice system. The cornerstone of this system is the lawyer’s duty to participate transparently. Boswell’s actions showed a profound disregard for this duty:
1. Initial Suspension for Silence
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission initiated an investigation into a grievance filed against Boswell. When he failed to respond to the Commission’s inquiries, the Supreme Court issued an Order to Show Cause. This order required him to explain in writing why he should not be immediately suspended for noncooperation.
- The Breach: Boswell failed to submit any response to the court’s order.
- The Result (June 19, 2024): The Indiana Supreme Court issued a Published Order Suspending Respondent from the Practice of Law in Indiana for Noncooperation (Supreme Court Case No. 23S-DI-341). This suspension was immediate and continued until he cooperated with the Commission.
2. The Conversion to Indefinite Suspension
Under Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10.1)(c)(4), if an attorney fails to cooperate for more than ninety (90) days following a noncooperation suspension, the Commission is authorized to move for an indefinite suspension.
- The Escalation (November 1, 2024): After more than 90 days passed with no word from Boswell, the Disciplinary Commission successfully moved to convert his temporary suspension to an Indefinite Suspension from the practice of law.
An indefinite suspension is a severe escalation. It is not a fixed-term punishment like a six-month suspension; it is a permanent block on practicing law until the attorney takes proactive steps to cure their misconduct.
The Heavy Cost of Evasion
Boswell’s disciplinary case is a textbook example of how ignoring a problem only makes it worse. By refusing to engage with the Commission, he incurred two primary consequences:
- Indefinite Loss of License: To ever practice law again, Boswell must now successfully petition the Supreme Court for reinstatement. This is an arduous process that requires him to prove he has cured all causes of his suspension, including finally cooperating with the original grievance investigation.
- Financial Penalty: The Court ordered Boswell to reimburse the Disciplinary Commission $532.79 for the costs incurred in prosecuting the noncooperation proceeding. In effect, his refusal to cooperate resulted in him paying for the disciplinary action against him.
Conclusion: Cooperation is a Mandate
The disciplinary action against Alger V. Boswell III serves as a powerful deterrent. While lawyers may face allegations stemming from mistakes or client disagreements, the worst possible response is silence. The judicial system is predicated on transparency and respect for its regulatory bodies.
When an attorney treats the Disciplinary Commission’s investigation with contempt, they demonstrate a lack of fitness to hold the public trust. The Indiana Supreme Court’s decision makes it clear: cooperation with the bar is not optional; it is a mandate. Failure to comply converts a pending issue into a career-ending crisis.