In the Matter of Stuart K. Baggerly

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted Stuart K. Baggerly’s consent to discipline after finding that he failed to competently and diligently represent clients, keep them informed, safeguard client funds, and promptly deliver funds owed to them. The Court suspended him from practicing law for 30 days, subject to automatic reinstatement conditions, and assessed the proceeding’s costs against him.

Holdings

1. The respondent engaged in professional misconduct by violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(a), and 1.15(d).
2. Restitution made after a client filed a grievance or after disciplinary proceedings were initiated does not qualify as a mitigating circumstance.
3. A thirty-day suspension from the practice of law, followed by automatic reinstatement subject to the applicable rule, was appropriate for the respondent's professional misconduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the respondent engaged in professional misconduct by failing to competently and diligently represent clients, communicate with them, safeguard their property, and promptly deliver client funds.
2. Whether the respondent's belated restitution constituted a mitigating circumstance.
3. What discipline should be imposed for the admitted misconduct.

Disposition

other