FOR THE RESPONDENT		FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT

							DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

Jeffrey K. Baldwin, Pro Se		Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary

						Robert C. Shook, Staff Attorney		 						115 West Washington Street, Ste. 1060

						Indianapolis, IN  46204

______________________________________________________________

	IN THE

	SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

IN THE MATTER OF		)

						)  Case No. 32S00-9608-DI-571

JEFFREY K. BALDWIN		)

______________________________________________________________

	DISCIPLINARY ACTION

_______________________________________________________________

Per Curiam

	The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission charges that the respondent, 

Jeffrey K. Baldwin, violated the Professional Rules of Conduct for Attorneys at Law by failing promptly to deliver to a client funds that the client was entitled to receive.  The Commission and the respondent have tendered for this Court’s approval a Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline in resolution of this case. Our disciplinary jurisdiction is conferred by the respondent’s admission to this state’s bar on May

31, 1979.   We find that the parties' agreement should be accepted. 

	The parties agree that on April 21,1992, a client hired the respondent to collect past- due rent from one of the client’s former tenants.  The client paid to the respondent a non-

contingent fee for anticipated legal services along with $55 to pay the court filing fee.  That

same day, the respondent filed a complaint on the client’s behalf.   On July 11, 1992, the trial

court entered a default judgment in favor of the client for $2,197 plus $1,000 in attorney fees

and $55 for court costs for a total judgment of $3,352 plus 10% post-judgment interest. The

court entered a Final Order in Garnishment in favor of the client on September 21, 1992.

	The trial court clerk received the first garnishment check on November 2, 1993.  

Based on receipt of that check and those received thereafter, the clerk issued checks payable

to the client and forwarded them to the respondent.1    Upon receipt, the respondent deposited each check into his trust account.   By June 22, 1994, the respondent had deposited a total

of $3,352.00 into his trust account pursuant to the garnishment.

	Beginning around September 21, 1992, the client made periodic inquiries to the

respondent or the respondent’s staff concerning the status of the garnishment.  On September

18, 1995, the client, through an agent, sent the respondent a letter inquiring about the status

of the garnishment.  On October 5, 1995, the respondent informed his client by letter that the

total amount received to date was $1,686, when in fact the respondent had deposited $3,352. 

 On October 13, 1995, the respondent personally delivered two trust account checks in the

amounts of $1,686.00 and $2,058.00 (or a total of $3,744) to his client.  	

W	We find that by holding the garnished funds in his trust account for a period of more

than thirteen months before forwarding the funds to his client, respondent failed to act with

reasonable diligence on behalf of his client and violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3.2   By failing to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the garnishment and failing promptly

to inform his client of the receipt of the funds, the respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a).3  By failing promptly to deliver recovered garnishment funds to his client, the respondent

violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(b).4

	Now that we have found misconduct, we now assess the appropriateness of the agreed

sanction, that being a public reprimand.  The parties offer in mitigation the fact that the

respondent has no prior disciplinary history before this Court, but indicate nothing specific

to explain or extenuate the respondent’s misconduct.  By silently retaining the garnishment funds in his

account, the respondent deprived his client of the relief sought for an extended  period and

forced his client to take affirmative steps to learn the status of the matter.   Nonetheless, there ins nothing in the record indicating that the respondent retained the funds for his own personal

benefit or because of some other sinister motive.  We note also that the

parties’ agreed sanction comports with that suggested by the American Bar Association in

cases of isolated client neglect. See ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standard 4.44 (providing that admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent

and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes little or no

actual or potential injury to the client).   The respondent has delivered to his client all funds

due and has admitted his misconduct.   Accordingly, we conclude that the agreed discipline

is sufficient in this case. 

	It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent, Jeffrey K. Baldwin, is hereby

reprimanded and admonished for the misconduct set out above.

	Costs of this proceeding are assessed against respondent.