
    In the Matter of Timothy A. DOYLE, Respondent.
    No. 49S00-1104-DI-214.
    Supreme Court of Indiana.
    June 23, 2011.
   PUBLISHED ORDER SUSPENDING RESPONDENT FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN INDIANA FOR NONCOOPERATION

On April 21, 2011, this Court ordered Respondent to show cause why Respondent should not be immediately suspended from the practice of law in this state for failure to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against Respondent. The order required that Respondent show cause in writing within ten days of service of the order. Respondent has not submitted a response to the Court’s order to show cause. On May 17, 2011, the Commission filed a “Request for Ruling and to Tax Costs.”

Being duly advised, the Court ORDERS that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for noncooperation with the Commission, effective immediately. Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(8), this suspension shall continue until further order of this Court.

Respondent is already under a suspension order entered in Cause No. 49S00-1012-DI-677, effective March 18, 2011, and under a suspension order for failure to pay costs in a prior disciplinary case, effective March 19, 2011. Respondent is ordered to fulfill the continuing duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(5), that Respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Commission $522.16 for the costs of prosecuting this proceeding.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to give notice of this order to Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the address reflected in the Roll of Attorneys. The Clerk of this Court is further directed to give notice of this order to the Disciplinary Commission and to all other entities entitled to notice under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d). The Clerk is further directed to post this order to the Court’s website, and Thomson Reuters is directed to publish a copy of this order in the bound volumes of this Court’s decisions.

All Justices concur.  