Seems clear to me SUPREME COURT STATE OF COLORADO No 98SA447 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE January 25 1999 IN THE MATTER OF FRED BAUDER EN BANC ATTORNEY SUSPENDED Linda Donnelly Attorney Regulation Counsel James C Coyle Assistant Attorney Regulation Counsel Denver Colorado Fred Bauder Pro Se Crestone Colorado PER CURIAM In this lawyer discipline case a hearing panel of the supreme court grievance committee approved the findings and recommendation of the hearing board The board and the panel recommended that the respondent Fred Bauder be suspended for thirty days be required to petition for reinstatement and pay certain costs before again being allowed to practice law We accept the recommendation I Fred Bauder was licensed to practice law in Colorado in 1976 He failed to answer the formal complaint filed in this case and the hearing board entered a default against him The allegations of fact contained in the complaint were therefore deemed admitted See C R C P 241 13 b People v Paulson 930 P 2d 582 582 Colo 1997 Based on the default and the evidence presented the hearing board found that the following had been established by clear and convincing evidence On July 14 1997 we publicly censured Bauder for soliciting for prostitution during a phone call with the wife of a dissolution of marriage client See People v Bauder 941 P 2d 282 283 Colo 1997 Bauder was ordered to pay the costs of that proceeding in the amount of 2 058 97 within thirty days of the date on the opinion See i d at 283 84 He did not pay the costs as ordered however or file a motion for an extension of time to comply with our order Moreover Bauder failed to respond to a letter from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and has not explained or justified his noncompliance with the order As a result a request for investigation was filed against him Bauder did not respond to the request for investigation The hearing board concluded that Bauder knowingly disobeyed an order of this court in violation of Colo RPC 3 4 c and that his conduct also violated Colo RPC 8 4 d engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and C R C P 241 6 7 failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation II The hearing panel approved the board s recommendation that Bauder be suspended for thirty days be required to petition for reinstatement and as a further condition of reinstatement demonstrate that he has paid the costs incurred in the 1997 proceeding Under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 1991 Supp 1992 ABA Standards s uspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a court order or rule and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party or interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding ABA Standards 6 22 However disbarment is warranted when a lawyer a intentionally or knowingly violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order and such violation causes injury or potential injury to a client the public the legal system or the profession I d at 8 1 a The 1997 public censure is an aggravating factor for analyzing the proper level of discipline See i d at 9 22 a Other aggravating factors include Bauder s refusal to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct see i d at 9 22 g his substantial experience in the practice of law see i d at 9 22 i and his indifference to making restitution see i d at 9 22 j Because Bauder did not appear at the hearing or offer any evidence no mitigating factors were found The lawyer respondent has defaulted and apparently ignored the disciplinary proceedings We elect to accept the board s recommendation See People v Rishel 956 P 2d 542 544 Colo 1998 We are satisfied that the requirement that the respondent undergo reinstatement proceedings and demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is again fit to practice law will adequately protect the public Accordingly we accept the recommendations of the hearing board and panel One member of the court however would impose more severe discipline III It is hereby ordered that Fred Bauder is suspended from the practice of law for thirty days effective thirty days after the issuance of this opinion It is further ordered