IN THE

	SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

IN THE MATTER OF		)

						)  Case No. 49S00-9606-DI-470

ANONYMOUS				)

_________________________________________________________________

	DISCIPLINARY ACTION

_________________________________________________________________

September 2, 1998

Per Curiam

	The Disciplinary Commission and the respondent agree that the respondent in this lawyer disciplinary proceeding violated Rule 1.15(a)1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law by commingling personal funds with client funds in his lawyer trust account.  The parties further agree that the appropriate sanction for that misconduct is a

private reprimand.  We agree and therefore accept the parties’ agreed resolution, but wish

to recount the facts and circumstances of this case in order to demonstrate the delicate nature

of trust fund accounting and the need for diligent attention to the details of maintaining such

an account.  

	The respondent is a lawyer in good standing who maintained a client trust account at a banking institution.  In addition to depositing client funds into the account, the respondent

also accumulated earned attorney fees in the account.  Further, between August 1994 and

January 1995, he deposited into the account rent checks in an aggregate amount of $2,385.52

from a tenant of an office building he owned.   Between September and December 1993, the

respondent distributed as quarterly bonuses approximately $44,450.00 to himself and his

associate lawyers with checks drawn on the client trust account.  These funds were in fact

earned attorney’s fees.  	

	The obligation under Ind.Professional Rule of Conduct 1.15(a) is one necessitating

the care required of a professional fiduciary.   See Comment to Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 1.15(a).   Subsection (a) requires that lawyers hold the property of clients separate from

their own, aside from a limited exception to the rule whereby lawyers may leave or deposit

in client trust accounts nominal amounts of their own funds, including earned funds, to

maintain a nominal balance or to cover nominal account maintenance charges. See footnote 1, supra; Matter of Lehman, 690 N.E.2d 696, 704 (Ind. 1997).   By allowing significant sums of earned fees to accumulate and remain in his client trust account for extended periods, and

by depositing significant amounts of rental payments into that same account containing client

funds, the respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a).  

	The commingling  of a lawyer’s funds with those held in trust for clients subjects

client funds to many unacceptable risks, including attachment by creditors and

misappropriation or conversion of the funds (whether intentional or not) by the lawyer.  With regard to determining whether or not a violation of the “anti-commingling” rule has occurred, it is

irrelevant that the misconduct was not part of a scheme to conceal income, was not the

product of selfish or dishonest motives, or that client funds were never in point of fact at risk.   Such

factors, however, do impact our assessment of proper sanction for violations of the rule. 

That the respondent had no selfish motive, did not seek to conceal funds, and never placed

his client funds in any demonstrable risk is fortunate and relevant to assessment of sanction

and therefore persuades us that a  private reprimand is appropriate in this instance. 

Accordingly, the respondent and Commission’s  agreement in resolution of this case will be

accepted by separate order, and the respondent will be privately reprimanded.