Thursday, November 15, 2007

Supreme Court Reprimands Steve Shine

Local Republican chairman Steve Shine was in the news today as the JG reports that the state Supreme Court has issued him a reprimand for the way his wife handled funds at his law firm.
The Indiana Supreme Court issued a private reprimand to local attorney Steve Shine for misconduct related to financial oversight at his law firm.

The reprimand was issued because for five months beginning in May 2005, Beth Shine, Steve Shine’s wife, wrote approximately 11 checks to herself or to accounts to which she had access from the law firm’s trust account, according to the court documents. This amounted to misappropriating $22,257 in client money without the knowledge of anyone at the firm, Shine & Hardin

However, the paper reports that all the money was paid back in late 2005...

5 comments:

NoKeltyKoolAid said...

I think there might be a little more to this story then meets the eye. I know that the wife had some drug problems and they are divorced.

Parson said...

This is a bit off topic, but I see the republicans are asking for a recount for the 2nd. district votes. I hope it still comes out in Karen's favor. I can't blame them though, 13 votes isn't much.

J Q Taxpayer said...

Parson, I agree with you. At the most I would see maybe 2-3 vote switch. If so, it will come from absentee ballots.

If it changes who the winner is then there was a major screw up. I just don't see that happening

John Good said...

Nokeltykoolaid - I have it on good authority that it wasn't just the wife with the problem. Good times were had by all at weekends at the lake during days gone by. . .

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Unless, of course, you're a judgmental hypocrite.

ROACH said...

I'm not a lawyer, but
I thought that writing unauthorized checks on a company's account, then cashing them without proper authority was commonly called embezzlement? Isnt that what happened to the GOP earlier this year? Boy-Shines Karma account is really biting him in the ass, isnt it?