Opinion ID: 1161862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: were the sanctions excessive?

Text: The purpose of bar discipline is to protect the public and not to punish the attorney. In re Lurie, 113 Ariz. 95, 95, 546 P.2d 1126, 1126 (1976). In the instant case, the Hearing Committee recommended suspension of the Respondent for seven months. The State Bar Commission reduced the amount of suspension from seven months to six months. Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Former Disciplinary Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court, a member suspended for more than six months, must go through the application process to be reinstated, whereas, a person who has been suspended for six months or less shall be reinstated pursuant to Rule 41(k), which allows the member to be reinstated without complying with the other provisions of the rule. See Rule 41(a), (k) Ariz. R.S.Ct., 1987 Supplemental Pamphlet to Vol. 17A A.R.S., at 467. We disagree, however, with both the Committee and the Commission. The actions of the Respondent directly affected the property and legal position of his clients. His actions put them in financial risk and indeed caused his liability carrier to have to pay an amount for damages. We believe that both the Committee and the Commission erred on the side of leniency in this matter. The purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public and not to punish the lawyer. As the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions state: The purpose of lawyer discipline proceedings is to protect the public and the administration of justice from lawyers who have not discharged, will not discharge, or are unlikely properly to discharge their professional duties to clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. ABA, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standard 1.1 (1986). In the instant case, the Respondent has been guilty of fee gorging, failure to protect the interest of his client and most importantly a lack of candor before the Commission and the Committee. As the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions states: Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any considerations, or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed. ... Aggravating factors include: (f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process.... ABA, Standards For Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standards 9.21, 9.22(f) (1986). We believe the Respondent has shown a pattern of misconduct which warrants that the public be protected by disbarment rather than suspension. As we have noted: It occurs to us that it would be unfair to the public to permit an attorney who has been guilty of such unethical conduct as the evidence in this case discloses to continue the practice of the law. Some of the acts charged, standing alone, might not call for such serious consequences, though at least two of them would, but all of them taken together show a course of conduct on the part of respondent incompatible with a proper appreciation by him of that confidential relation which an attorney should maintain toward his client. The protection of the public, not the punishment of the attorney guilty of unprofessional conduct, is the rule by which the courts are guided in solving the question whether a member of the bar should be allowed to continue the practice and, in this instance, the application of this principle, as we view the facts, denies respondent this right. It is therefore, the order of the court that he be disbarred.... In re Russell, 57 Ariz. 395, 406, 114 P.2d 241, 245 (1941).