Opinion ID: 2499595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: ABA Standard 3.0 Mitigating Factors

Text: Mitigating factors are any considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline imposed. The Hearing Board considers evidence of the following mitigating circumstances in deciding the appropriate sanction. Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record  9.32(a): Respondent has been practicing law for over twenty years and has no prior disciplinary history. The Hearing Board gives great weight to this factor. Timely Good Faith Effort to Make Restitution or to Rectify Consequences of Misconduct  9.32(d): Respondent has made a timely good faith effort to make restitution and rectify the consequences of his misconduct. He willingly participated in good faith in a legal fee arbitration proceeding, paid the $1,500.00 award, and apologized to Ragusa during those proceedings. Since participating in this disciplinary action, Respondent testified that he has voluntarily completed fourteen to fifteen hours of ethics CLEs in order to identify his mistakes and become a better attorney. Full and Free Disclosure to Disciplinary Board or Cooperative Attitude toward Proceedings  9.32(e): The evidence indicates that Respondent has consistently cooperated with the People throughout this proceeding. Character or Reputation  9.32(g): The Hearing Board heard testimony from multiple witnesses at trial as to Respondent's good reputation and character within the legal community. Specifically, Michael Kossen, a criminal defense attorney, met Respondent in 1989, has co-counseled over fifteen cases with Respondent, and has consulted with him in more than one hundred cases. He testified as to Respondent's reputation as an honest and hardworking attorney who puts forth an extraordinary effort on his cases. Colin Brese, a criminal defense attorney who has co-counseled cases with Respondent in over twenty trials, testified that Respondent is professional and honest and that his behavior in this matter was out of character and not typical. The Hearing Board finds the testimony of these two witnesses to be credible evidence of good character. [54] Delay in the Disciplinary Proceedings  9.32(j): The Ragusa case occurred in 2005 over five years ago. The delay was not caused by the People. The court of appeals' opinion was announced in 2009 and the People acted promptly by filing a complaint within a year of the opinion. Because of this delay in the disciplinary proceedings, however, it was difficult for all witnesses to precisely recall all of the underlying events and statements. However, because Respondent was unable to establish unfair prejudice as a result of the delay, this factor will not be weighed heavily. [55] Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions  9.32(k): Respondent paid Ragusa the $1,500.00 arbitration award. Additionally, Respondent was severely chastised for his misconduct by the court of appeals in a published decision. This decision, as testified to by Respondent's colleagues, has caused some harm to Respondent's reputation. Remorse  9.32(l): Respondent displayed great remorse for his behavior at the disciplinary hearing. He testified that he regrets his behavior during the in camera proceedings and that he realizes the statements he made had no place in front of the judge or the prosecutors. Respondent acknowledges that his statements did not assist Ragusa, that he should never have made them, and that he should have told her about the hearings. Respondent testified that he cringes when he reads the record and that he greatly regrets his behavior. The Hearing Board finds Respondent's testimony credible.