Commentary

New Charges Filed Against Former Local Attorney

Two charges of theft were filed against a former local attorney, Ronald Gifford, on Monday. Both counts were entered as Class D Felonies. Count I and Count II concern unauthorized control of checks fr...
04-07-09 [publisher: Carol Anders]













Two charges of theft were filed against a former local attorney, Ronald Gifford, on Monday. Both counts were entered as Class D Felonies.

Count I and Count II concern unauthorized control of checks from an account of Bullish, Inc.

According to court records, Attorney Jere Humphrey said that on or about April 16, 2004, at 319 W. Jefferson Street, Plymouth, Gifford “did knowingly exert unauthorized control over the property of Bullish, Inc. account, to-wit: $7,000 worth of checks on the Bullish, Inc. account, with the intent to deprive said person of any part of the use or value of the property”.

Count II specifies an amount of $96,124.62 on the same account from October of 2006 thru August of 2008.

The address of 319 W. Jefferson Street, Plymouth is the law offices of Wyland, Humphrey, Wagner, and Clevenger. Gifford was previously associated with the firm.

No other details of the alleged theft were available.

On April 7, 2009 Gifford was also scheduled for an initial hearing on two charges of Forgery/Counterfeiting (D Felony) and two counts of Deception (A misdemeanor) stemming from alleged actions taken  in 2006 and 2007 by Gifford when he represented two Garden Court projects knows as Fairfield Garden Court and Mentone Garden Court. Both are low-income housing projects.

On October 5, 2008, the Indiana Supreme Court ordered that the license to practice law of Gifford be suspended for a period of at least nine months, beginning November 14, in connection with alleged professional misconduct. Those rulings concerned the Garden Court projects.

In the ruling of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, the court found that Gifford failed to seek the proper IRS forms confirming the tax-exempt status for the two projects. The form is required to obtain HUD mortgage grants. The order stated, “For each client, respondent (Gifford) forged an IRS confirmation and used it at closings Because of respondent’s (Gifford’s) actions, each client and HUD incurred unnecessary expense.”