Case Title: Matter of Gamble

Citation: 122 Ariz. 2, 592 P.2d 1268

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1979-04-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
122 Ariz. 2 (1979) 592 P.2d 1268 In the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Albert R. GAMBLE, Respondent. No. SB-161. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. April 2, 1979. Peter Voevodsky, Tucson, State Bar Counsel. Albert R. Gamble, in pro. per. HAYS, Justice. This matter comes to us by reason of findings and recommendation of a local administrative committee which were approved by the State Bar of Arizona Disciplinary Board. It was recommended that the respondent, Albert R. Gamble, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months. The respondent filed Opposition to the Findings and Recommendations alleging: In his memorandum of points and authorities the respondent has made reference to various pages in the transcripts in support of his position. No legal authorities are cited in support of any of the allegations, including the due process issue. A reference to the findings of the committee gives a factual overview: Bearing in mind that our role in disciplinary proceedings, as set forth in In re Moore, 110 Ariz. 312, 518 P.2d 562 (1974), is that of a trier of fact, we have carefully examined the transcripts of the proceedings before the local administrative committee. The numerous transcripts cover a time span from May 20, 1977 to November 20, 1977. We find that the evidence therein supports the findings of the committee, and we therefore concur in those findings. The respondent candidly admitted the transactions with his stepdaughter and his failure to disclose the relationship to the beneficiaries of the trust. He presents basically no defensive evidence. The committee was unable to elicit definitive answers from either the respondent or his stepdaughter as to where the money came from that was allegedly paid by the stepdaughter for the interests in the parcels of land. Their answers were contradictory, changed under cross-examination, and were never clear. Nor were his written records available. We conclude that Albert R. Gamble did violate the Code of Professional Responsibility as indicated in the committee findings. Although the committee's proceedings were extremely informal, we find no due process deficiencies. It is ordered that the respondent, Albert R. Gamble, be and he is hereby suspended from the practice of law for three months commencing May 1, 1979. CAMERON, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concurring.