ALMA WILSON, Justice:

The Bar Association filed a complaint against David M. Dunlap (Respondent) alleging that he had engaged in unprofessional conduct. Respondent and the Oklahoma Bar Association stipulated to findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties joined in recommending that a six month suspension from the practice of law be imposed as discipline, and that Respondent be required to pay costs of the proceedings. The trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Commission has adopted the stipulations of fact, conclusions of law, and the recommendation for discipline.

The facts as stipulated and approved by the Trial Panel are as follows: On January 13, 1989, Vicky Kesterson (Kesterson) entered into a contingent fee contract with the respondent, David Dunlap. The parties agreed that Respondent would represent Kesterson in a claim for injuries Kesterson sustained when she slipped and fell in a restaurant.

On March 21, 1989, the restaurant's insurance carrier paid Respondent $713.43, by check, to cover medical expenses already accumulated by Kesterson. On May 7, 1989, Respondent, who did not have a client trust account, deposited the check into his general operating account.

On July 26, 1989, Respondent received a second check from the insurer, on Kesterson's behalf. Respondent opened a client trust account in August of 1989. The second check, in the amount of $4,286.57, was deposited into the attorney's trust account on August 2, 1989.

Between March 1989 and March 1991, Respondent paid all but $10-$35 either directly to Kesterson, or to third parties on her behalf. In March 1991, the matter settled for an additional $100,000, for a total, including the two previous payments, of $105,000.

The $100,000 payment was made in the form of five checks: One for $83,212.96 to Respondent, who deposited the full amount into his trust account. Three additional checks totalling $14,597.54 were paid directly to medical provides. The 5th check was made payable jointly to Kesterson and to her physician.

On March 6, 1991, Respondent paid Kesterson $40,000. While most other medical and legal expenses were paid, the client and Respondent agreed that a portion of the settlement would remain in Respondent's trust account. The money was intended to cover future expenses in a companion products liability case, as well as additional medical expenses.

During the course of Ms. Kesterson's representation, Respondent failed to keep accurate financial records. On several occasions the balance of the trust account fell a few hundred dollars below the amount Respondent was to have been holding in trust for Ms. Kesterson. A final accounting revealed that Kesterson actually received $350 more than she was entitled to under the fee contract.

When the irregularities occurred, Respondent was experiencing marital problems. He is now divorced and is receiving counseling regarding the relationship issues. Respondent has acknowledged responsibility for the acts of misconduct and has implemented new office accounting procedures.

The parties agree that Respondent has violated Rules 1.5(c) and 1.15(a) and (b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rule 1.4(b), Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Rule 1.15(a) requires an attorney to maintain client funds in an account separate from the lawyer's personal or business accounts, and to keep complete records of transactions involving client funds. Rule 1.15(b) directs lawyers to notify their clients whenever money is received on their behalf, and to promptly deliver the funds and/or a full accounting of any funds due to a client upon request. Rule 1.4 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings sets out requirements for client trust accounts. and provides that failure to account for and deliver funds upon demand constitutes conversion.

Although the recommendations of the Trial Panel are given great weight, this Court has authority to disregard any or all of the Trial Panel's findings where appropriate. After a de novo review of the record, we accept the Panel's findings of fact and law, but we decline to follow the Panel's recommendation for discipline.

This Court has assigned varying levels of discipline in matters involving mishandling of client funds. The disciplinary range has extended from censure to disbarment, depending in large part on the degree of harm to the client.

In State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Johnston, 863 P.2d 1136 (Okla. 1993), we articulated a continuum of culpability employed in evaluating mishandling of funds in violation of Rule 1.15. We discussed commingling, simple conversion, and misappropriation, and assigned ascending levels of culpability to the behaviors, with misappropriation being the most offensive. Johnston, 863 P.2d at 1144.

An attorney has commingled funds when he has failed to keep client moneys, or money accepted on behalf of a client, in an account which is separate from that of the attorney. Johnston, 863 P.2d at 1145. In Johnston, we found an attorney had committed commingling when he withdrew trust account funds intended for his client's medical bills and placed them in his personal account. For this and other acts of misconduct, Johnston was suspended for four months.

Simple conversion, the next serious offense, occurs when the attorney uses a client's money for some purpose other than that for which it was intended. In State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Farrant, 867 P.2d 1279 (Okla. 1994), the attorney committed simple conversion when he applied a client payment, intended for a private investigator's services, to his own fees. The private investigator eventually instituted a collection action against the client. For this and other infractions, the attorney was suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Finally, misappropriation occurs "when an attorney has purposely deprived a client of money by way of deceit and fraud. A lawyer found guilty of intentionally inflicting grave economic harm in mishandling client's funds is deemed to have committed this most grievous degree of offense." (Court's emphasis.) Johnston, 863 P.2d at 1145. In accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct, this Court has administered severe consequences for attorneys who purposefully misappropriated client funds. In State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Raskin, 642 P.2d 262 (Okla. 1982), the attorney was disbarred after he used client funds to pay his own mortgage and car payments. The attorney's misconduct caused the IRS to place a lien on the client's home and property. The same attorney exposed a client in a criminal case to contempt charges when the attorney misappropriated funds intended for the client's restitution. Raskin, 642 P.2d at 263.

In the instant case, the attorney did not initially have a client trust account and commingled a portion of his client's fees with his personal funds. The attorney later allowed the balance of his trust account to fall to a level below the amount owed to his client. We have already noted that simple commingling falls at the lower end of a continuum of culpability.

The act of allowing the level of a client trust account to fall below the amount held on behalf of clients, without more, is also one of the less egregious forms of mishandling of client funds. In State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Stephenson, 798 P.2d 1078 (Okla. 1990), an attorney received $900 for a debt owed to his client. Although the attorney deposited the entire amount into his trust account, the account level fell below the amount due to the client during four separate months. Ultimately, the attorney paid most of the money due to the client, however $40.00 was not paid until the Court ordered restitution.

In Stephenson, the parties agreed that the attorney's misconduct resulted from "inattention, negligence, and alcohol abuse." The attorney was publicly censured and was allowed to retain his license to practice during a probationary period of one year.

This Court remains firm in its assertion that all cases involving mishandling of client funds are significant. The mere appearance of impropriety involving money entrusted to a lawyer reflects upon the integrity of the entire profession. Therefore, it is clear that Respondent's behaviors warrant professional discipline.

At the same time, this Court has recognized a distinction between irregular record-keeping and actual misuse of funds. In State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Miskovsky, 824 P.2d 1090, 1101 (Okla. 1991) we found that three counts of mishandling funds "exhibited woefully sloppy, neglectful and at times incompetent record keeping instead of theft by conversion." In State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Moss, 794 P.2d 403, 411 (Okla. 1990) we similarly attributed misuse of clients' funds to neglectful record keeping, rather than to conversion.

In the instant case there is clear and convincing evidence that the attorney has violated rules of professional conduct: He should have deposited the first $700 into a trust account. After he finally opened the trust account, he should have clearly maintained the balance and sufficient records to easily trace funds. However, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that Respondent intentionally misused or converted his client's funds. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that Respondent's shortcomings were inadvertent. Respondent's records, once clarified, established that the client had actually been overpaid. Respondent never refused nor was unable to pay the client or her creditors. The client suffered no delay in payment, nor any inadequacy of payment.

Further, there are mitigating factors in this case which suggest that Respondent is not likely to repeat his improper behaviors. We note that throughout the proceedings Respondent has steadfastly acknowledged his wrongdoing, and has cooperated with the investigative process. As was true in Stephenson, Respondent was plagued by personal problems when the irregularities occurred. He experienced marital difficulties, but has since divorced, and has initiated counseling. He has implemented new office accounting procedures. The facts suggest, then, that Respondent's misconduct can be attributed to one or two identifiable factors which have since been eliminated.

Our primary goal in imposing discipline for attorney misconduct is not punishment, but protection of the public and of the courts. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Bradley, 746 P.2d 1130, 1134 (Okla. 1987). Through our decisions, we must justify public confidence in the courts by maintaining the legal profession's exacting ethical standards.

In the disciplinary matter before us, a six month suspension would accomplish nothing in furtherance of our goals. While we cannot excuse Respondent's behaviors, we find that he is unlikely to repeat his offenses. Suspension is unnecessary to protect the public or the integrity of the courts. Respondent's behaviors are less egregious than those of attorneys who have been suspended for six months. We therefore reprimand David A. Dunlap and admonish him that improprieties in clients' financial matters will not be condoned. We order that Respondent bear the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $319.40.

HODGES, C.J., and HARGRAVE, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur.

OPALA and KAUGER, JJ., not participating.