The opinion
SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Like Judge Charles O'Connor, who acted as our hearing officer in this matter, the Court declares itself satisfied that respondent M. Drew Miller practiced law without a license.
I agree. Miller used, or attempted to use, all the tools of the legal profession to represent a client before a state adjudicative body. He deployed regulations and appellate court case law; he tendered evidence and made legal argument "about it; he even presented state constitutional claims.
Miller's decision to practice law without a license was not a victimless crime. By the time the client's appeal reached the Indiana Tax Court, it became apparent that the client's interests had been damaged because Miller had failed to do for the client the things most licensed lawyers would have done. Hoogenboom-Nofziger v. Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, ( 15 N.E.2d 1018 , 1023 n. 3, 1024 n. 4 (Ind.Tax 1999) (describing points lost to client by Miller's representation). As the Court says, the client's appeal "proved unsuccessful in part due to Miller's failure...." Op. at 330.
*332 In spite of all this, the Court renders judgment in favor of Miller. It does so because the Board has new rules governing what non-lawyers may do and because “Bride have no reason to believe Miller will not comply with the Board's rules." Op. at 331.
I see little basis for this confidence, inasmuch as Miller stands before us today firmly asserting that he has never done anything remotely constituting the practice of law and demanding that fees be imposed on the Indiana State Bar Association for suggesting that he has. Someone who refuses to recognize his violation is not a plausible risk for future compliance, especially when he has been prosecuted - onee before, found guilty, and let off seot-free.
DICKSON , J., concurs.