## Facts

- Max K. Walker, Jr., an Indiana lawyer, served as Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Elkhart County and maintained a private practice.
- Walker previously represented the grievant in a divorce that concluded in December 1982.
- After the representation ended, Walker and the former client entered an intimate personal relationship that lasted until it deteriorated in 1987.
- On March 5, 1987, after consuming several alcoholic beverages, Walker went to the grievant’s home and argued with her about their relationship.
- The grievant asked Walker to leave and went to her bedroom; Walker followed her into the bedroom.
- Walker straddled the grievant, slapped her repeatedly, and struck her in the face with a closed fist, cutting her lip.
- As Walker left, he forcibly took a telephone from the grievant’s nine-year-old daughter and pushed the child.
- The incident was reported to police; the incident report was later lost.
- The elected prosecutor informed the grievant she could request a special prosecutor; she declined and instead requested that Walker obtain counseling, pay medical and counseling expenses, and have no further contact; Walker complied.
- The event received local press coverage and generated considerable publicity.

## Issues

1. Whether Walker committed professional misconduct under Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, including whether his conduct constituted a criminal act reflecting adversely on fitness (Rule 8.4(b)) and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (Rule 8.4(d)).
2. Whether discipline is improper because the conduct arose from a private adult relationship rather than the practice of law.
3. What sanction was warranted given Walker’s prosecutorial position, the publicity, and mitigating circumstances.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court determined, on unchallenged factual findings, that Walker’s conduct constituted professional misconduct.
- The Court found the domestic violence amounted to criminal conduct (battery) reflecting adversely on Walker’s fitness as a lawyer, violating Rule 8.4(b).
- The Court found the conduct prejudiced the administration of justice, violating Rule 8.4(d), emphasizing Walker’s role as a chief deputy prosecutor and the public attention to the incident.
- The Court rejected the argument that the matter was insulated from discipline because it occurred within a private relationship.
- The Court imposed a public disciplinary sanction.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer’s criminal act, including domestic battery, constitutes professional misconduct when it reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law under Rule 8.4(b).
- Lawyer discipline may be imposed for serious private conduct when the conduct bears on fitness and the profession’s public trust; it need not occur in client representation to be sanctionable.
- Misconduct by a prosecutor can be prejudicial to the administration of justice under Rule 8.4(d) because it undermines public confidence in law enforcement and the legal system, especially when publicized.
- Victim-requested nonprosecution and later remedial steps may mitigate sanction but do not negate misconduct findings for serious violence, including violence involving a child.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court held that an attorney’s domestic violence, even arising from a personal relationship, can warrant professional discipline because it constitutes criminal conduct reflecting adversely on fitness and, for a prosecutor, undermines public confidence in the administration of justice; the Court therefore imposed public discipline on Walker.


In re Walker, 597 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. 1992)