
    In the MATTER OF: Edward A. ANANIA, Respondent
    Supreme Court Case No. 19S-DI-10
    Supreme Court of Indiana.
    FILED July 25, 2019
    Published Order Approving Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline
    Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23 (12.1)(b), the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a "Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline" stipulating agreed facts and proposed discipline as summarized below.
    Stipulated Facts : "Client" retained Respondent to pursue a breach of contract action against an HVAC company and paid Respondent a $5,000 retainer. Thereafter, Respondent became largely nonresponsive to Client's attempts to contact him, did not actually file a complaint against the company, falsely told Client that he did file a complaint, and evaded Client's requests for a copy of the complaint. Client eventually confronted Respondent, who admitted he had not filed the complaint but promised to do so soon. Respondent did not do so, again lied to Client when asked if the complaint was filed, and again evaded Client's requests for a copy of the complaint. Client eventually discharged Respondent. Upon his discharge, Respondent provided only a partial copy of Client's file, and Respondent failed to advise Client on any remaining deadlines for filing a complaint within the statute of limitations.
    Violations : The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct:
    1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness.
    1.4(a): Failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and respond promptly to reasonable requests for information.
    1.16(d): After the termination of representation, failure to protect a client's interests and to return case file materials to which the client is entitled.
    8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
   8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Discipline : The parties propose the appropriate discipline is a 180-day suspension with automatic reinstatement. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, now approves the agreed discipline.

For Respondent's professional misconduct, the Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law for a period of 180 days, beginning September 5, 2019. Respondent shall not undertake any new legal matters between service of this order and the effective date of the suspension, and Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). At the conclusion of the period of suspension, provided there are no other suspensions then in effect, Respondent shall be automatically reinstated to the practice of law, subject to the conditions of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(a).

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. With the acceptance of this agreement, the hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged.

All Justices concur.  