The respondent also claims multiple errors as a result of the excessive duration of bar counsel's investigation and the delay of the subsequent hearing. He argues that dismissal of the judgment of disbarment is the proper remedy for the prejudice he suffered as a result of bar counsel's protracted investigation and the delayed hearing, which did not occur within the prescribed time period agreed on between bar counsel and the board in their joint memorandum of understanding of January, 1991. We reject these arguments. A respondent cannot cause a lengthened investigation and then fairly claim injury from the delay. Second, although there is no dispute that the petition was not filed within the time standards, the time standards are internal policies for the administrative convenience of the board.
Time standards are administrative in nature and confer no rights on the parties.
Finally, even if the respondent's claim had some merit, delay cannot be a basis for dismissal. The proposition that delay can be a basis for dismissal has been consistently rejected by both this Court and the board. Failure to call witnesses . The respondent claims error because bar counsel failed to call four witnesses essential to the respondent's defense. This claim is baseless.