The foundational principles of the legal profession—competence, diligence, and honest communication—were systematically abandoned by Indiana attorney James B. Dillon. His pattern of professional misconduct, spanning multiple client cases, resulted in court dismissals, significant financial harm to his clients, and ultimately, a disciplinary suspension from the practice of law by the Indiana Supreme Court.
The Scope of Professional Misconduct
The disciplinary action against James B. Dillon (Indiana Supreme Court Case No. 24S-DI-17) was based on four separate client matters in which he failed to provide competent representation. His actions violated multiple Indiana Professional Conduct Rules, highlighting a serious breakdown in his duty to his clients and the court system.
Case 1: Neglect of an Estate Claim
Dillon represented a seller attempting to reclaim commercial properties from a deceased buyer’s estate.
- The Neglect: Dillon failed to respond to the client’s inquiries and, critically, failed to respond to the estate’s motion to disallow the claim, which resulted in the claim being granted against his client.
- The Dishonesty: He later attempted to settle the potential malpractice claim with his client via text message but did not advise the client in writing to seek independent counsel, a clear violation of ethical rules. He also produced a settlement letter to the Disciplinary Commission that the client confirmed they never received.
Case 2: Dismissal for Lack of Diligence
In a civil action where Dillon represented the plaintiff, the case languished for about 18 months due to inactivity.
- The Neglect: After a dismissal motion was initially averted, Dillon failed to appear for a status conference and failed to schedule a court-ordered mediation.
- The Consequence: The court granted a second motion to dismiss, and the client’s case was dismissed with prejudice.
Case 3: Abandonment of Mediation
In another civil matter, Dillon walked out in the middle of a mediation conference and never returned, leaving the client unrepresented during a critical settlement phase. He was later fined by the court for his absence.
Case 4: Massive Default Judgment
Dillon represented a defendant in a suit alleging fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion.
- The Neglect: Dillon failed to comply with discovery procedures, leading to multiple motions to compel and for sanctions.
- The Consequence: Following his failure to appear at a sanctions hearing, the plaintiff moved for a default judgment, which was granted against Dillon’s client in the amount of $122,541.03. This gross negligence inflicted a massive financial penalty on his client.
The Disciplinary Sanction and Path Forward
Dillon’s cumulative misconduct, which included violations related to competence (Rule 1.1), diligence (Rule 1.3), communication (Rule 1.4), and conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation (Rule 8.4(c)), resulted in a structured suspension.
The Final Discipline
The Indiana Supreme Court approved a conditional agreement for discipline, ordering an 180-day suspension from the practice of law, effective November 4, 2024.
- 90 days were to be actively served.
- The remaining 90 days were stayed subject to at least two years of probation.
Probation and Recovery
His probation mandates monitoring by the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP) and requires him to undergo grief counseling, suggesting an underlying personal or mental health issue may have contributed to his inability to manage his practice.
The disposition serves as a stern warning that the courts will not tolerate persistent client neglect, especially when it results in devastating financial and legal consequences for the client. The suspension with monitored probation offers a controlled path toward potential re-entry, provided Dillon addresses the root causes of his professional failure.