 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Disciplinary Matter Involving Hanlon4/15/2005
tlement" with Rednall and then sent another letter on October 24, 1996 stating that he had "resolved" Rednall's claim without disclosing the fact that he personally provided the funds for the payment to Rednall. Both letters were sent in response to bar inquiries and Hanlon attempted to mislead both the bar and Rednall for a considerable time; the October 24 letter was sent more than three months after the bar's initial inquiry and nearly three months after Hanlon convinced Rednall to sign the "settlement." Hanlon provided the Rednall file to the bar only in response to the bar's November 25, 1996 directive. Furthermore, even after submitting his Rednall file to the bar, admitting that he had never filed any case on Rednall's behalf, and admitting that he had forged the "settlement" to avoid a malpractice charge, Hanlon continued to litigate his case in an adversarial fashion. Hanlon's answer to the bar's petition denied much of his alleged wrongdoing, as well as the accompanying harm to Martin and Rednall to which he later stipulated. Hanlon's answer also falsely stated that he had "immediately informed the Bar Association of his conduct and offered to make amends." Hanlon opposed summary judgment on the wrongdoing and harm issues, and insisted that his conduct had been "fluid and open to interpretation."
In light of this record, we find Hanlon's argument that he deserves mitigation for cooperating with the bar to be unpersuasive, and accordingly, hold that Hanlon's alleged cooperation with the bar is not a mitigating factor. Indeed, Hanlon's behavior in responding to the bar's inquiry triggers three aggravating factors enumerated by ABA Standard 9.22: (1) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; (2) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process; and (3) refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. These aggravating factors could have potentially led to Hanlon's disbarrment. However, for the reasons discussed below, we feel a sanction less than disbarrment is appropriate in this case.
2. The effects of a three-year suspension on Hanlon's career, personal reputation, and family are not mitigating factors. Hanlon also argues that the disciplinary inquiry "in some ways is always personal and depends upon the particular persona of the lawyer involved," and " hat the Bar Association los track of in its analysis of this case is the person involved in this process." Hanlon stresses his marriage and seven children, his ten-year solo practice, and his involvement in church and prison ministry activities. Hanlon argues that " very lawyer makes mistakes in his career," and he did so in this case "because he was a human being and he was afraid for his future and the future of his family." Hanlon insists that he is already "disgraced at home and church," and "reviled in reputation," and argues that a three-year suspension would force him "to close his office and seek a new career employment to support himself and his family," and suggests that this would be counterproductive, in the sense that "he won't ever make a mistake as a lawyer again because he won't be one."
However, even assuming that a three-year suspension would effectively end Hanlon's career, that fact cannot carry the weight that Hanlon gives it. As Hanlon himself admits, " he primary purpose of lawyer discipline is to protect the public." We have stated that " t is the solemn duty of this court to regulate the practice of law in this state and to see that the integrity of the profession is maintained by disciplining attorneys who indulge in practices inconsiste
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.
|
|