 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Disciplinary Matter Involving Hanlon4/15/2005
nt with the high ethical standards demanded of all members of the bar." Similarly, in recommending Hanlon's suspension the committee stressed that "the interests of the public and the Bar Association will be served by this level of discipline."
Neither Alaska law nor the ABA Standards regard the likely effects of a penalty on a lawyer's business, family, and personal reputation as mitigating factors. Nor should they. As the Arizona Supreme Court has suggested, if the effect of sanctions upon an attorney's practice and livelihood were considered mitigating factors, they would apply in virtually every case. While a few courts have weighed the family effects of attorney discipline as a sanction-mitigating factor, they have done so only in fairly extreme circumstances that are not present in this case. The general rule is that "the risk of damage to a lawyer's livelihood is a natural consequence of any disciplinary proceeding against him." And "every suspension carries with it 'pain' for the suspended attorney. This 'pain' is a necessary element of any suspension because it serves as both a general and specific deterrent to future misconduct." Thus, we hold that the potential effect of the suspension on Hanlon's practice, reputation, or personal life is not a mitigating factor.
3. The remaining mitigating factors do not require departure from the committee's recommendation of a three-year suspension. In light of our rejection of the previous proposed mitigating factors, we must determine whether the remaining mitigators are sufficient to warrant a lesser sanction than a three-year suspension. Hanlon and his character witnesses insist that his unethical conduct was aberrational and unlikely to recur, and that Hanlon feels great remorse. Hanlon's stipulation also points out that his one prior ethical violation was minor and "remote in time and circumstances." The bar does not dispute these points.
A good prior record, remorsefulness, and the unlikelihood of recurring violations are undeniably factors that mitigate attorney disciplinary cases. However, the extent of this mitigation differs from case to case; as noted earlier there is no "magic formula" for imposing disciplinary sanctions. Some cases in other jurisdictions suggest that these mitigating factors may reduce suspensions for similar unethical acts to less than three years. But in numerous other cases, courts have imposed long suspensions despite the presence of these factors, although such mitigating factors have been relied upon to reduce sanctions of disbarrment to suspensions. Indeed, in Whitt, violations very similar to Hanlon's resulted in disbarrment, although after the court had rejected significant mitigating factors. Because we accept the undisputed mitigating factors in Hanlon's case, we hold that the lesser sanction of a three-year suspension is sufficient and appropriate.
Such a sanction is in line with our own case law given the severity of Hanlon's offense and our duty to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession. We have recognized that "even minor violations of law by a lawyer may tend to lessen public confidence in the legal profession." And we have a "duty to discipline lawyers who indulge in practices inconsistent with the high ethical standards imposed upon the legal profession in this state." These principles, together with the severity of Hanlon's misconduct and the "great weight" we give findings made by the board, support imposition of a three-year suspension in this case.
V. CONCLUSION
We suspend James J. Hanlon from the practice of law for three years.
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.
|
|