ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT ATTORNEY FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
Pro se Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary
Charles M. Kidd, Staff Attorney
Indianapolis, Indiana
In the
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 71S00-0509-DI-416
IN THE MATTER OF
DANNY RAY HILL Respondent.
________________________________
Disciplinary Action
________________________________
January 10, 2006
Per Curiam,
Respondent, Danny Ray Hill, has failed on multiple occasions to meet his obligation, as
required by Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23 § 10(a)(2), to respond to Indiana Supreme
Court Disciplinary Commission demands for information in connection with grievances filed
against him. By order dated September 12, 2005, we suspended respondent indefinitely as a re-
sult of his lack of cooperation. As a result of yet another failure to respond to an order to show
cause why he should not be suspended, on October 26, 2005, we issued an order for the respon-
dent to appear before the Court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. On No-
vember 23, 2005, respondent appeared before a hearing panel of this Court and explained his
conduct. Because of respondent’s continued failure to cooperate, we now conclude that he
should remain suspended until he can satisfy the reinstatement requirements set forth in Ad-
mis.Disc.R. 23 §§ 4 and 18.
FACTS
Respondent has been the subject of more petitions to show cause for failure to cooperate
than any other Indiana attorney. Between October 16, 2003 and September 16, 2005, the Com-
mission filed nine such petitions and we have issued nine orders to show cause. 1 In each of the
nine cases, the Commission made numerous unsuccessful attempts to correspond with respon-
dent about the information the Commission sought, before it petitioned this Court.
On June 23, 2005, we issued an order suspending respondent due to his failure to cooper-
2
ate. As provided in Admis.Disc.R. 23 § 23(10)(f)(3), this suspension was to remain in effect
until:
(a) the Executive Secretary certifies to the Court that the attorney
has cooperated with the investigation; (b) the investigation or any
related disciplinary proceeding that may arise from the investiga-
tion is disposed; or (c) until further order of the Court.
On June 28, 2005, respondent filed a motion to lift the suspension and to reinstate. On
July 30, 2005, we ordered that respondent should remain suspended until he paid outstanding
costs that had been assessed in four of his cases. 3 Subsequent to this order, another failure to co-
operate came before the Court on September 12, 2005. 4 At that time, we suspended respondent
and specifically provided that his suspension could be lifted only after he had petitioned the
Court and established that he was fit to return to the practice of law. Respondent was back before
the Court on yet another failure to cooperate matter, and on October 26, 2005, we issued an Or-
der to Appear and Show Cause, which led to the contempt hearing before the Court on Novem-
ber 23, 2005.
1
Matter of Hill, 71S00-0310-DI-451; 71S00-0404-DI-196; 71S00-0405-DI-216; 71S00-0408-DI-387; 71S00-0504-
DI-159; 71S00-0505-DI-238; 71S00-0506-DI-275; 71S00-0507-DI-328; and 71S00-0509-DI-416.
2
Matter of Hill, 71S00-0504-DI-159.
3
Matter of Hill, 71S00-0408-DI-387; 71S00-0504-DI-159; 71S00-0505-DI-238; and 71S00-0506-DI-275.
4
Matter of Hill, 71S00-0507-DI-328.
2
DECISION
Respondent has demonstrated a serious lack of regard for the disciplinary process. His
failures to cooperate have resulted in needless expenditure of Commission time and resources
that could have been better spent dealing with other issues. He has also taken up an inordinate
amount of this Court’s time in dealing with his repeated refusals to cooperate. Though respon-
dent has apologized to the Court and expressed remorse for his conduct, his apology is not con-
sistent with his continuing failure to cooperate with Commission demands for information. At
the time of his appearance before the Court on November 23, 2005, respondent still had not com-
plied with Commission requests made months before. As such, we believe that respondent’s
continued suspension is necessary.
Our order of September 12, 2005, in cause number 71S00-0507-DI-328, suspending re-
spondent until he petitioned this Court for reinstatement and established his fitness to return to
the practice of law, has generated some confusion regarding the proper procedure for respon-
dent’s reinstatement, as evidenced by the Commission’s motion for clarification filed November
10, 2005. The process for reinstatement of a lawyer suspended under Admis.Disc.R. 23 can be
broken down into five general categories:
1. suspensions for failure to cooperate under § 10(f),
2. interim suspensions upon felony convictions under § 11.1(a),
3. suspensions for delinquent child support under § 11.1(c),
4. suspensions for failure to pay registration fees under § 21, and,
5. all other suspensions provided in Admis.Disc.R. 23.
Category number 5, which generally entails disciplinary suspensions without automatic
reinstatement and disability suspensions, requires a lawyer seeking reinstatement to file a peti-
tion under Admis.Disc.R. 23 § 18, pay a filing fee of $500.00, and meet the requirements of
Admis.Disc.R. 23 § 4. Category number 4 requires a written application to the Clerk of this
Court and the payment of an administrative reinstatement fee of $200.00 as described in Ad-
mis.Disc.R. 23 § 21(e). Category 3 suspensions require the filing of a petition for reinstatement
and a certified copy of a court order stating that the lawyer is no longer in intentional violation of
an order for child support, and the payment of a $200.00 filing fee, as provided in Admis.Disc.R.
23 § 18(c). Category 2 suspensions require a verified motion for dissolution of the suspension as
set forth in Admis.Disc.R. 23 § 11.1(b)(6).
3
As noted above, a Category 1 suspension for failure to cooperate continues until one of
three conditions is met: certification of compliance by the Commission, disposition of the inves-
tigation or any related disciplinary proceeding, or further order of this Court. Neither of the first
two conditions has occurred in this case. As such, by this opinion we are limiting respondent’s
reinstatement to the third condition: further order of the Court. Typically, reinstatement for fail-
ure to cooperate would not require the lawyer to petition pursuant to Admis.Disc.R. 23 § 18 and
meet the requirements of Admis.Disc.R. 23 § 4. However, because of the nature and magnitude
of respondent’s repeated violations, we are concerned about his ability to function as a lawyer.
We cannot be confident that he attends to his clients’ affairs any more responsibly than his own.
Therefore, we require respondent to petition for reinstatement as set forth in Admis.Disc.R. 23 §
18, and to meet the requirements set out in Admis.Disc.R. § 4.
Unfortunately, we are seeing a limited number of lawyers who do not timely respond to
Commission requests for information. The Commission’s requests for information cannot be ig-
nored and to do so is an independent violation of Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 8.1(b). As with
the respondent in this case, lawyers who choose to disregard Commission requests will do so at
their peril. In the future, we will have far less tolerance for lawyers who fail to cooperate timely
with the Commission and, as here, will not hesitate to take significant action.
Based upon the information before us, we find that the respondent is in contempt of this
Court. We therefore order that the respondent, Danny Ray Hill, is suspended indefinitely. In or-
der to be reinstated, the respondent must file a petition pursuant to Admis.Disc.R. 23 § 18 and
satisfy the requirements of Admis.Disc.R. 23 § 4. The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward
notice of this order to the respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his address as
reflected in the Roll of Attorneys, to the Disciplinary Commission, and to all other entities pur-
suant to Admis.Disc.R. 23, Section 3(d), governing suspension.
Costs of these proceedings are assessed against the respondent.
4