 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Disciplinary Matter Involving Hanlon4/15/2005
ty. Hanlon and the bar stipulated that in light of the uncertain damages and the applicable mitigating factors, suspension rather than disbarrment would be the appropriate sanction.
The committee held a Sanctions Hearing on October 31, 2002, and issued a report and recommended sanction on September 4, 2003. The committee determined that Hanlon's negligent handling of both Martin's and Rednall's claims merited reprimand. The committee also agreed that suspension was the appropriate penalty for Hanlon's dishonest acts and statements in the Rednall case. The committee noted that while the harm that Hanlon had caused Rednall did not amount to "serious injury or potentially serious injury," his conduct was "extremely egregious," and "undermined the attorney discipline process and caused loss of public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession." The committee pronounced itself "deeply troubled by the deceptive and dishonest conduct exhibited" by Hanlon, and noted that although Hanlon's dishonest conduct would normally result in disbarrment, in light of the parties' stipulation and Alaska case law, it recommended he be suspended for three years.
Hanlon appealed the committee's recommendation to the Bar's Board of Governors, arguing that the three-year suspension was excessive. The board unanimously adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Hearing Committee. Hanlon appeals.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We independently review the entire record in attorney disciplinary proceedings. We apply our independent judgment to questions of law and questions concerning the appropriateness of sanctions. We examine each case individually, "guided but not constrained by the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, and by the sanctions imposed in comparable disciplinary proceedings." In imposing attorney sanctions, we perform a three-step analysis: first we address the first three prongs of the ABA Standards by determining (1) the duty violated, (2) the lawyer's mental state, and (3) the extent of the actual or potential injury . Next we examine the recommended sanction under the ABA Standards for the misconduct found in the first step. Finally, once we determine the recommended sanction, we decide whether and how the sanction should be affected by aggravating or mitigating factors. We independently review the evidence related to aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but give great weight to a disciplinary board's factual findings.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Hanlon's Ethical Violations and Presumptive Punishment Are Undisputed
Hanlon has stipulated (1) that he violated Bar Rule 15(a)(3) when he supplied the bar with "misleading or deceptive" representations regarding the Rednall matter, and that he violated Alaska Rule of Professional Conduct (ARPC) 8.4(c) when he "fabricated the compromise and release to unilaterally effect 'settlement' of a possible malpractice claim against him for failing to timely pursue Rednall's injury claims;" (2) that he acted with the intent to deceive Rednall and the bar in committing these violations; and (3) that his deceptive conduct "potentially caused interference in a legal proceeding by undermining the attorney discipline process, and actually caused loss of public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession." The committee and board agreed. The first step of the ABA sanction process is therefore not at issue.
The committee also agreed with Hanlon and the bar that Hanlon's appropriate presumptive punishment is suspension under ABA Standard 6.12. This issue is undisputed, and therefore the second step of our sanction process is also not at issue. T
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|