Please help answer questions 1-5 after reading the case

1. who prepared and filed the bankruptcy? Who appeared at the hearing?

2. what functions did the lawyer Gillaspy and the nonlawyer involved perform in this legal matter? Which constituted the practice of law?

3. why did the representation here amount to "incompetence"?

4. who did the clients pay? How was Gillaspy Paid?

5. what were the mitigating factors in setting the sanction? what was the sanction? do you believe that it was an appropriate sanction?

CASES FOR ANALYSIS In this disciplinary matter, a lawyer was sanctioned for incompe- tence and other violations arising out of an improper relationship with nonlawyers. In re Gillaspy 640 N.E.2d 1054 (Ind. 1994) Respondent Joseph M. Gillaspy was charged by Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action with numerous violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law. .. . Rothfuss referred Hamilton and Hamilton's wife to James Wilson ("Wilson") of JNW Management Corporation for the purpose of filing a petition for bankruptcy, pursuant to Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Like Rothfuss, Wilson was not a lawyer. On August 1, 1991, a voluntary petition for bankruptcy was filed in United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern Divi- sion, Indianapolis, on behalf of Hamilton and his wife. The petition listed Respondent as the attorney of record, even though Wilson had prepared the paperwork relative to the petition. On November 7, 1991, Hamilton and his wife attended the first meeting of creditors, pursuant to Section 341 of the bankruptcy code. At this meeting, Hamilton met Respondent for the first time. Hamilton did not pay Respondent for the legal services. Respon dent received a check for $300.00 from Benefit Planners as payment for the legal services he rendered on behalf of Hamilton. Rothfuss, as pres- ident of Benefit Planners, signed the check. Respondent undertook toCases represent other individuals in bankruptcy matters under circumstances similar to those in the Hamilton bankruptcy. The agreed facts clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent violated Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 1.4(b) since, having never even met Hamilton or his wife prior to the filing of the bankruptcy p Respondent did not explain matters to them to the extent reasonably necessary to permit them to make informed decisions regarding the rep- resentation. Because he abdicated the factual and legal analysis of this matter to non-lawyers Rothfuss and Wilson, Respondent failed to pro- vide competent representation and therefore violated Prof. Cond. R. 1.1. Respondent violated Prof. Cond. R. 1.8(f) by accepting compensation from Rothfuss for representing Hamilton, while non-lawyers Rothfuss and Wilson exercised what should have been Respondent's independent professional judgment and confidential lawyer-client relationship between Respondent and the Hamiltons. By sharing fees with Rothfuss and Wilson, allowing them to direct and regulate his professional judg ment in rendering legal services, and by assisting Rothfuss and Wilson in activity which constituted the unauthorized practice of law, Respondent violated Prof. Cond. R. 5.4(a), 5.4(c), and 5.5(b). ... We are inclined to accept the agreed sanction, noting that Respon dent's fee-sharing arrangement with non-lawyers clearly threatened Respondent's independent professional judgment and competence. However, we are also cognizant of the fact that none of the bankruptcy petitioners filed grievances relating to any unprofessional or incompetent representation by Respondent; that Respondent ceased his affiliation with Benefit Planners immediately upon learning that there were ethical problems with the arrangement; and that Respondent was completely cooperative and truthful during the Commission's investigation of this matter. The Commission and Respondent characterize Respondent's dealings with Benefit Planners as resulting from professional naivete, rather than from a willful scheme to take advantage of clients. ... It is, therefore, ordered that Respondent, Joseph M. Gillaspy, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than ninety (90) days, beginning November 14, 1994, with automatic rein- statement to occur immediately after the conclusion of the suspension period