Title: People v. Gould
Citation: 912 P.2d 556
Docket Number: 96SA55
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: March 18, 1996

912 P.2d 556 (1996) The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant, v. Ari B. GOULD, Attorney-Respondent. No. 96SA55. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. March 18, 1996. *557 Linda Donnelly, Disciplinary Counsel, James S. Sudler, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Denver, for Complainant. Harvey A. Steinberg, Denver, for Attorney-Respondent. PER CURIAM. This lawyer discipline proceeding comes to us on a stipulation, agreement and conditional admission of misconduct between the respondent and the assistant disciplinary counsel. C.R.C.P. 241.18. The conditional admission recommended that the respondent be publicly censured for possession of a controlled substance, cocaine. An inquiry panel of the supreme court grievance committee approved the conditional admission including the recommendation of a public censure. We accept the conditional admission and the inquiry panel's recommendation. The respondent was admitted to practice law in Colorado in 1993. The parties stipulated to the following facts and disciplinary violations. As the respondent has stipulated, the foregoing conduct violated R.P.C. 8.4(h) (engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law), and C.R.C.P. 241.6(5) (any act or omission violating the criminal laws of a state or of the United States constitutes ground for lawyer discipline). In approving the conditional admission, the inquiry panel recommended a public censure. The respondent's admitted possession and use of cocaine would normally warrant suspension: The respondent has no history of previous discipline, which is a mitigating factor under ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (ABA Standards) 9.32(a) (1991 &amp; 1992 Supp.). In addition, there is the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, id. at 9.32(b); the respondent has made full and free disclosure to the disciplinary counsel, id. at 9.32(e); other penalties or sanctions have been imposed, id. at 9.32(k); and the respondent has demonstrated remorse, id. at 9.32(l). The assistant disciplinary counsel indicates that the respondent has never been accused of any neglect of a legal matter, and that there is no evidence that the respondent has a cocaine addiction. Moreover, the respondent has fully complied with the terms of his deferred prosecution, resulting in his early termination from that program. Under these circumstances, we have decided to accept the conditional admission and the inquiry panel's recommendation. Accordingly, Ari B. Gould is hereby publicly censured. It is ordered that the respondent pay the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $49.25 to the Supreme Court Grievance Committee, 600 Seventeenth Street, Suite 920-S, Denver, Colorado 80202, within thirty days after the announcement of this opinion.