FOR THE RESPONDENT		FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT

							DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

Alan Merideth, pro se. 			Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary

						Charles M. Kidd, Staff Attorney

						115 West Washington Street, Ste. 1060	

						Indianapolis, IN  46204

______________________________________________________________

	IN THE

	SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

IN THE MATTER OF			)

						)  Case No. 10S00-9704-DI-259

ALAN MERIDETH			)

______________________________________________________________

	DISCIPLINARY ACTION

_______________________________________________________________

May 28April ______, 1998

Per Curiam

	By falsely informing his client that a settlement had been reached in resolution of civil

litigation and then by paying to his client bogus settlement funds, respondent Alan Merideth

violated the Rules of Professional Misconduct for Attorneys at Law.   For that misconduct, which the respondent admits, the respondent and the Disciplinary Commission agree that the 

respondent should be suspended from the practice of law in this state for at least one year.1 Their agreement is now before us for approval.   The opinion that follows sets forth the facts

of circumstances of this case. 

	The respondent was admitted to the bar of this state in 1989 and during relevant times  was a member of a Jeffersonville, Indiana law firm.   In October 1993, the respondent filed a civil action in the Jefferson Circuit Court on behalf of a client, a California automobile

dealership (the “plaintiff”).  On December 8, 1993, the defendant, a Madison, Indiana auto

dealer, filed an answer, counterclaim, and a request for production of documents.  The

respondent did not respond to the counterclaim and failed to answer the request for

production.  In September  1994, the respondent contacted a representative of the plaintiff and

advised him that the defendant had offered to settle the litigation for $6,000.  The plaintiff’s

representative accepted the settlement.  In fact, the defendants had not offered to settle.  On

September 20, 1994, the respondent gave his secretary a check for $6,000, drawn on the

respondent’s personal checking account,  along with a note advising her to deposit the check

in the respondent’s law firm’s escrow account.   The note further directed the secretary to

prepare an escrow account check for $5,800 made payable to the plaintiff and to transmit the 

check to California by fastest priority mail.  The note concluded with instruction that she

shred and burn the note after accomplishment of the “mission” described therein.   Another

attorney in the respondent’s law firm later discovered the fraudulent settlement and

immediately discharged the respondent. 

	Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct

for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. 

By falsely informing his client that a settlement had been reached and causing the bogus

settlement check to be produced and delivered to the plaintiff, the respondent violated

Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(c).   The respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), which  prohibits lawyers from commingling their own funds with those of clients or third persons, 

by depositing his personal funds into the firm’s escrow account.2   Professional Conduct Rule 1.4 requires lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their clients’ 

legal matters and to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit clients to

make informed decisions regarding the representations.  The respondent’s communication

with his clients failed to do either and thus violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4.  Professional Conduct

Rule 3.2 requires lawyers to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with

their clients’ interests.  By failing to take any legitimate action after filing the complaint, the

respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.2. 

	We find that the agreed sanction, a suspension from the practice of law for at least one

year, is appropriate for the respondent’s misconduct.   Beyond filing an initial complaint, the

respondent took no legitimate action in furtherance of his client’s case.  After allowing the 

matter to languish for almost one year, the respondent, to appease his client, concocted and

perpetuated the existence of the phony settlement.  His sham denied the client the

opportunity to participate in any meaningful way in the decision-making relative to the case. 

He then resorted to trust-fund mismanagement to conclude the fraud.  The American Bar Association advises that suspension is appropriate where a lawyer knowingly fails to perform

services for a client or where a lawyer knowingly deceives a client.  See ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline, Standard 4.4 and 4.62.  The respondent did both, and therefore deserves a significant period of suspension. 

	It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent, Alan Merideth, be suspended from the

practice of law for a period of not less than one year, beginning _________________JulyJuly 1, 1998.  At the

conclusion of that period, he may petition this Court for reinstatement to the practice of  law

in this state, provided he pays the costs of this proceeding, complies with Admis.Disc.R.

23(4), and otherwise satisfies our requirements for reinstatement.3

	The clerk of this Court is directed to provide notice of this order in accordance with

Admis.Disc. R. 23(3)(d) and to provide the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Seventh Circuit, the clerk of each of the Federal District Courts in this state, and the clerk

of the United States Bankruptcy Court in this state with the last known address of respondent

as reflected in the records of the clerk.