Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal Robert Partenheimer Resigns from Indiana Bar
Priority review Enforcement Amended Final

Robert Partenheimer Resigns from Indiana Bar

Favicon for www.in.gov IN Supreme Court Attorney Discipline
Filed
Detected
Email

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted the resignation of attorney Robert S. Partenheimer from the Indiana Bar effective immediately under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17). The resignation acknowledges pending disciplinary investigation and that Partenheimer could not successfully defend against misconduct allegations. Respondent is ineligible to petition for reinstatement for five years from the order date. Any reinstatement petition requires clear and convincing evidence of remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law.

Published by IN Supreme Court on in.gov . Detected, standardized, and enriched by GovPing. Review our methodology and editorial standards .

What changed

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted the resignation of attorney Robert S. Partenheimer from the Indiana Bar pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17), which requires the respondent to acknowledge pending misconduct proceedings and inability to successfully defend. The resignation is effective immediately, and the Roll of Attorneys Administrator is directed to record the resignation. All pending disciplinary proceedings are dismissed as moot.

For legal professionals and the public, this order removes Partenheimer from the practice of law in Indiana and bars reinstatement for five years. Any future reinstatement petition may address the misconduct admitted in the resignation affidavit. The order clarifies that resignation does not relieve Respondent from civil or criminal liability for misconduct. Affected parties should note that admission and discipline rules impose ongoing duties on resigned attorneys, and the cost assessment creates a financial obligation.

What to do next

  1. Attorney must cease practice in Indiana immediately
  2. Attorney must fulfill duties under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26)
  3. Attorney must await 5-year ineligibility period before seeking reinstatement

Penalties

Costs of the disciplinary proceeding assessed against Respondent

Archived snapshot

Apr 14, 2026

GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.

Indiana Supreme Court

26S-DI-11 Respondent

Published Order Accepting Resignation and Concluding Proceeding

Respondent has tendered to this Court an affidavit of resignation from the bar of this State, pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17), which requires an acknowledgement that there is presently pending an investigation into or a proceeding involving allegations of misconduct and that Respondent could not successfully defend himself if prosecuted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the resignation from the bar of this State tendered by Respondent is accepted effective immediately. The Roll of Attorneys Administrator is

directed to record Respondent's resignation on the Roll of Attorneys. Respondent shall fulfill all the applicable duties under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any attorney disciplinary proceedings pending against Respondent are hereby dismissed as moot because of Respondent's resignation. Respondent shall be ineligible to petition for reinstatement to the practice of law for five years from the date of this order. See Admis. Disc. R. 23(18)(b). If Respondent seeks reinstatement, the misconduct admitted in Respondent's affidavit of resignation, as well as any other allegations of misconduct, may be addressed in the reinstatement process. Approval of a petition for reinstatement is discretionary and requires clear and convincing evidence of the petitioner's remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law. Id. Acceptance of Respondent's resignation from the bar serves only to remove Respondent from the practice of law and does not relieve Respondent from any liability he might have for his misconduct under civil or criminal law. The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, on ___________ . 4/9/2026

Loretta H. Rush Chief Justice of Indiana All Justices concur.

FILED In the

In the Matter of: Robert S. Partenheimer, Supreme Court Case No.

CLERK

Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax CourtApr 09 2026, 1:42 pm

Named provisions

Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17) Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(b) Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26)

Get daily alerts for IN Supreme Court Attorney Discipline

Daily digest delivered to your inbox.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

About this page

What is GovPing?

Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission

What's from the agency?

Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from IN Supreme Court.

What's AI-generated?

The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.

Last updated

Classification

Agency
IN Supreme Court
Filed
April 9th, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Substantive
Document ID
26S-DI-11

Who this affects

Applies to
Legal professionals
Industry sector
5411 Legal Services
Activity scope
Attorney bar membership Professional discipline
Geographic scope
US-IN US-IN

Taxonomy

Primary area
Employment & Labor
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Judicial Administration Criminal Justice

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when IN Supreme Court Attorney Discipline publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

You're subscribed!