 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Matter of Shannon6/21/1994
factor.
Having rejected all of Respondent's challenges to the Commission's findings of aggravating and mitigating factors, we adopt the Commission's findings. Accordingly, we find that the following aggravating factors are applicable in this case: (1) multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct; (2) substantial experience in the practice of law--however, we find this factor de minimus; (3) failure to directly acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct; (4) a dishonest or selfish motive, (5) vulnerability of the victim; and (6) an indifference to making restitution. We also find that the following mitigating factors are applicable: (1) absence of prior disciplinary record, and (2) cooperation with the disciplinary proceedings.
b. ABA Standards - Recommended Sanctions
We now look to the sanctions recommended in the Standards, because they embody the remaining three factors that should be considered in determining appropriate sanctions: (1) the duty violated, (2) the lawyer's mental state, and (3) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct. See Standard 3.0 Commentary (recommended sanctions for breaches of duty owed to clients are tailored to lawyer's mental state and injury or potential injury to client); see also In re Levine, 174 Ariz. 146, 170, 847 P.2d 1093, 1117 (1993) (Standards are useful tool in determining proper sanction). Based on Respondent's violations, the following Standards apply:
(1) as to Respondent's violation of ER 1.7, Standard 4.32;
(2) as to Respondent's violation of ER 1.4, Standard 4.43;
(3) as to Respondent's violation of ER 3.3, Standard 6.12;
(4) as to Respondent's violations of ERs 8.4(c) and (d), Standard 6.12; and
(5) as to Respondent's violation of ER 1.15, Standard 4.14.
With the exception of Respondent's violation of ER 1.4, which calls for a reprimand, and his violation of ER 1.15, which calls for an admonition, the bulk of his violations call for suspension. Suspension is clearly warranted in this case.
In determining the length of the suspension to impose, the Committee and the Commission considered the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors. Despite the differences in their Conclusions as to the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, both the Committee and the Commission agreed that a one-year suspension was warranted. As previously noted, we adopt the Commission's findings as to the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors. We also agree that a one-year suspension is warranted. Respondent challenges this suspension as disproportionately long, while the State Bar argues that it is too short.
Because we are guided "by the principle that an effective system of professional sanctions must have internal consistency," we examine sanctions imposed in cases factually similar to Respondent's. See Pappas, 159 Ariz. at 526, 768 P.2d at 1171 (discussing Standards preface and Standard 1.3). We have long recognized, however, that "the discipline in each situation must be tailored for the individual case; neither perfection nor absolute uniformity can be achieved." In re Wines, 135 Ariz. 203, 207, 660 P.2d 454, 458 (1983); see, e.g., Levine, 174 Ariz. at 174, 847 P.2d at 1121.
Respondent's argument that a one-year suspension is disproportionately long fails for two reasons. First, one of Respondent's claims supporting his argument is that the recommended sanction is based on various erroneous Conclusions that
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|