The legal profession demands moral rectitude both inside and outside the courtroom. When an attorney’s personal conduct crosses the line into criminal activity, the consequences can be swift and final. The disciplinary case involving veteran Indiana attorney Richard M. Malad is a clear example, as a felony conviction ultimately led to his resignation from the bar, effectively ending his decades-long career.
The Origin of the Disciplinary Action
The final disciplinary action against Malad began not with a client complaint, but with a criminal conviction.
In September 2024, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a notice that Malad had been found guilty of Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated (OWI), a Level 6 felony. This felony conviction immediately triggered an interim suspension of his law license by the Indiana Supreme Court, a necessary move to protect the public while formal disciplinary proceedings commenced.
The Resignation: Acknowledging the Inevitable
Instead of defending himself against the disciplinary charges that would certainly follow the felony conviction, Richard M. Malad chose to take a different path: he submitted an Affidavit of Resignation to the Indiana Supreme Court.
This action is a highly significant move under Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17). By tendering his resignation, Malad officially acknowledged that there were allegations of misconduct pending against him that he could not successfully defend against if the Disciplinary Commission chose to prosecute the case.
On July 22, 2025, the Indiana Supreme Court accepted his resignation, immediately removing him from the Roll of Attorneys. The court’s order formally dismissed all pending disciplinary proceedings as moot because he was no longer a licensed attorney.
Conclusion: The High Barrier to Reinstatement
The accepted resignation does not mean Malad avoided punishment; it is a permanent mark on his professional record. The Supreme Court’s order stipulated that Richard M. Malad is ineligible to petition for reinstatement for five years from the date of his resignation.
Furthermore, should he ever choose to seek reinstatement, the process is difficult and entirely at the court’s discretion. He would be required to prove with clear and convincing evidence his remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law—with the very misconduct he admitted in his affidavit being a major consideration.
The case of Richard M. Malad is a sober conclusion to a long career, demonstrating that an attorney’s duty to the law extends to all aspects of their life. When an attorney’s actions result in a felony conviction, the legal profession’s self-regulatory mechanism will act decisively to ensure that the public trust is protected.