IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

IN THE MATTER OF                                       )

                             ) Case No. 71S00-0408-DI-387

DANNY RAY HILL                                   )

ORDER DISMISSING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PAY COSTS

On September 3, 2004, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing the respondent to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law in this state for failing to respond to the Disciplinary Commission’s subpoena duces tecum. On November 10, 2004, the Commission filed a Motion to Dismiss and to Tax Costs, therein stating that the respondent substantially complied with the Commission’s demands on September 29, 2004.   The Commission has also moved this Court to impose costs against the respondent, pursuant to Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10)(f)(5), in the amount of $504.42. 

This Court, being duly advised, now finds that the Commission’s motions should be granted. 

             IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this Court’s Order to Show Cause issued in this matter on September 3, 2004, is hereby dismissed as moot.

            IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent, Danny Ray Hill, pursuant to Admis.Disc.R. 23(10)(f)(5), is to reimburse the Disciplinary Commission $504.42 for the costs of prosecuting this proceeding.

            The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward notice of this Order to the respondent or his attorney and to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. 

            DONE at Indianapolis, Indiana, this ______ day of December, 2004.

                                                                        _______________________

                                                                        For the Court

Randall T. Shepard

                                                                        Chief Justice of Indiana

Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm and Rucker, JJ. Concur.

Shepard, C.J. concurs in dismissal and taxation of costs, but would be unwilling to dismiss any future requests for contempt as this case represents the fourth time respondent has failed to cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission.