DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
The Louisiana State Bar Association, through its Committee on Professional Responsibility, instituted this disciplinary proceeding against Clyde P. Martin, Jr., a member of said association. The committee conducted an investigation of respondent’s alleged misconduct in accordance with article 15, section 3 of the articles of incorporation of the association. The committee by certified mail dated June 7, 1982 sent respondent notice of six separate specifications of misconduct which would be heard at a formal investigatory hearing to be held on July 8, 1982.
Specification No. 1 alleged:
You were retained to pass an act of sale and prepare mortgages on behalf of Gerald J. Dicharry, Jr. Said mortgage and act was to be recorded to effect the transfer of property and to secure loan made from the New Orleans Engineering District Federal Credit Union to Mr. Dicharry. Despite payment of your fee and repeated demands, you have failed, refused and neglected to file the act of sale on the mortgage, causing injury and damage to your client. All in violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102 [1] and 9-102 [2] of the Code of Professional Responsibility for this Association.
Specification No. 2 alleged:
You were retained to pass an act of sale and prepare mortgages on behalf of Frank J. Andel, Jr. Said mortgage and act was to be recorded to effect the transfer of property and to secure loan made from the New Orleans Engineering District Federal Credit Union to Mr. An-del. Despite payment of your fee and repeated demands, you have failed, refused and neglected to file the act of sale on the mortgage, causing injury and damage to your client. All in violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102 and 9-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for this Association.
Specification No. 3 alleged:
You were retained to pass an act of sale and prepare mortgages on behalf of Paul Duplantis. Said mortgage and act was to be recorded to effect the transfer of property and to secure loan made from the New Orleans Engineering District Federal Credit Union to Mr. Duplantis. *563Despite payment of your fee and repeated demands, you have failed, refused and neglected to file the act of sale on the mortgage, causing injury and damage to your client. All in violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102 and 9-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for this Association.
Specification No. 4 alleged:
You were retained to pass an act of sale and prepare mortgages on behalf of Melvin B. Collins. Said mortgage and act was to be recorded to effect the transfer of property and to secure loan made from the New Orleans Engineering District Federal Credit Union to Mr. Collins. Despite payment of your fee and repeated demands, you have failed, refused and neglected to file the act of sale on the mortgage, causing injury and damage to your client. All in violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102 and 9-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for this Association.
Specification No. 5 alleged:
You were retained to pass an act of sale and prepare mortgages on behalf of Oscar Rowe. Said mortgage and act was to be recorded to effect the transfer of property and to secure loan made from the New Orleans Engineering District Federal Credit Union to Mr. Rowe. Despite payment of your fee and repeated demands, you have failed, refused and neglected to file the act of sale on the mortgage, causing injury and damage to your client. All in violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102 and 9-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for this Association.
Specification No. 6 alleged:
You were retained to pass an act of sale and prepare mortgages on behalf of Normand R. Sheeren. Said mortgage and act was to be recorded to effect the transfer of property and to secure loan made from the New Orleans Engineering District Federal Credit Union to Mr. Sheeren. Despite payment of your fee and repeated demands, you have failed, refused and neglected to file the act of sale on the mortgage, causing injury and damage to your client. All in violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102 and 9-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for this Association.
At respondent’s request, the hearing date was continued and respondent was notified by certified letter dated October 15,1982 of the new hearing date of November 17,1982. Respondent did not appear at the formal investigatory hearing held on the scheduled date in accordance with article 15, section 3(b) of the articles of incorporation; nor was he represented by counsel.
Based on the evidence adduced at the formal investigatory hearing, the committee, by a majority vote, was of the opinion that respondent had been guilty of a violation of the laws of this state relating to the professional conduct of lawyers and to the practice of law of sufficient gravity as to evidence a lack of moral fitness for the practice of law; that, specifically, respondent was guilty of the misconduct set forth in Specifications Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. On March 15, 1983, the committee instituted in this court a suit for disciplinary action against respondent under the provisions of article 15, section 4(c) of the articles of incorporation. The petition was duly served upon respondent, but he failed to answer the petition. Thereafter, on motion by the committee, we appointed Rufus C. Harris, Jr. commissioner to take evidence and to report to this court his findings of fact and conclusions of law. Louisiana State Bar Association Articles of Incorporation art. 15, §§ 6(b) & 6(d).
A hearing before the commissioner was conducted on October 11, 1983. Although respondent had been notified by certified letter dated September 23, 1983 of the hearing date, he neither appeared nor was represented by counsel. The committee introduced into evidence, without objection, the entire record of the earlier investigatory hearing. Upon termination of the hearing, the commissioner filed with this court his written report wherein he stated his findings of fact and conclusions of law and *564recommended a two-month suspension from the practice of law as the appropriate disciplinary action. The committee filed its concurrence in the commissioner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but filed an opposition to the commissioner’s recommendation of appropriate disciplinary action, arguing that this court should consider a longer period of suspension than two months. Respondent did not except to the commissioner’s report. After oral argument before this court, at which respondent neither appeared nor was represented by counsel, the matter was submitted for our determination on the record before the commissioner.
The bar association has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that respondent was guilty of the alleged specifications of misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Association v. Dowd, 445 So.2d 723 (La.1984).
Respondent was retained in 1979 by the New Orleans Engineering District Federal Credit Union to pass by notarial act five acts of mortgage and one act of sale and mortgage and to record the mortgages in the mortgage office and register the sale in the conveyance office. In each of the six specifications of misconduct, the mortgagors paid respondent his fees for the preparation, passage and recordation of the acts and advanced him money to cover the rec-ordation costs. Although respondent did prepare and pass all of the acts in question, he did not record or register any of them despite repeated requests to do so by the mortgagee credit union and several of the mortgagors. To date, respondent has not taken any action to conclude the work contracted for or to return the monies advanced him for said work.
Based upon the evidence in the record before the commissioner, we find that respondent was guilty on all six counts of neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3)3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
We must now decide what disciplinary action is appropriate in this matter. Although the commissioner recommended a two-month suspension from the practice of law, the committee in its brief to this court argued that a one-year suspension would be a more appropriate sanction in this case. The purpose of lawyer disciplinary proceedings is not primarily to punish the lawyer but rather to maintain appropriate standards of professional conduct to safeguard the public, to preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and to deter other lawyers from engaging in violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The discipline to be imposed will depend on the seriousness of the offense involved and the facts and circumstances of each case. The court *565will take into account both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Association v. Dowd, supra; Louisiana State Bar Association v. Bubert, 421 So.2d 831 (La. 1982).
In the case at bar, respondent neglected six legal matters entrusted to him for which he had been advanced fees and recordation costs and has presented no evidence of mitigating circumstances. In fact, he has failed to cooperate with either the committee or the commissioner in the investigation of this matter; nor has he filed a brief or made any appearance in this court. This court has held that a lengthy suspension is appropriate when a defendant in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding fails to cooperate because that “lack of cooperation indicates he has no intention of reforming his conduct.” Louisiana State Bar Association v. Thompson, 427 So.2d 1144 (La.1983). Furthermore, respondent received six public reprimands in 1982 from the Louisiana State Bar Association for six previous counts of failing to record mortgages and register sales after having accepted payment for the performance of such services. However, in the instant case, the record does show that, as of the date of the investigatory hearing, no party was injured as a result of respondent’s failure to record the acts in question.
In view of respondent’s lack of cooperation in this matter and his history of professional misconduct, we find that a six-month suspension from the practice of law is the appropriate penalty in this case.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that Clyde P. Martin, Jr. be suspended from the practice of law in the State of Louisiana for the period of six months. Respondent is to bear all costs of these proceedings.