Opinion ID: 1969629
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: order and report and recommendation of the board on professional responsibility

Text: In a petition filed June 15, 1994, Bar Counsel charged Respondent with violating three Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 3.4(a), obstruction of another party's access to evidence and alteration, destruction or concealment of evidence; Rule 4.1(a), making false statements of a material fact to a third person while representing a client; and Rule 8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Hearings were held before Hearing Committee Number Six on October 6 and December 12, 1994. [5] In its August 8, 1995 report, the Hearing Committee found clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated all three rules and recommended that he be suspended from practice for sixty (60) days. Respondent excepted to the Hearing Committee's recommended sanction, arguing that the appropriate sanction is a public censure. In addition, on October 17, 1995, he filed a motion to dismiss the charges with prejudice because of unwarranted delay in the disciplinary proceedings. On November 9, 1995, the Board denied the motion without prejudice as premature. On November 16, 1995, Respondent moved to remand the proceeding to the Hearing Committee for testimony on a psychological disability from which he said he was suffering at the time of his misconduct. No such evidence had been presented at the original hearing. On March 7, 1996, the Board heard oral argument on Respondent's motions for remand and dismissal and his exceptions to the Hearing Committee's findings. Bar Counsel supported the Hearing Committee's recommendations and opposed the motions to dismiss and remand. The Board: a) finds that Respondent failed to make a good cause showing that the case should be remanded for evidence on a mitigating disability and denies the motion for remand; b) concludes that the length of the proceedings was neither unusual nor prejudicial to Respondent and denies the motion to dismiss on those grounds and further finds that delay is not a mitigating factor; c) upholds the Hearing Committee's findings on all three violations; and d) recommends that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for sixty (60) days.