Opinion ID: 1178035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: board findings and considerations

Text: Evans next contends that the Committee's sixth finding of fact is contrary to the facts brought out in the hearing. The finding states in relevant part: The committee finds that Respondent's failure to answer the Request for Investigation forestalled the investigation and development of the facts in dispute and resulted in the Bar Association being unable to utilize available process to require attendance of witnesses at a hearing to resolve disputed facts ... . (Emphasis added.) According to information supplied by the Committee, Evans calculates that Methvin left Alaska approximately at the end of January 1981. Evans contends that even if he had timely answered the first letter from the Alaska Bar Association, it is unreasonable to believe that the Bar Association would have made any effort to force Methvin to appear at his own expense [from Seattle] at a hearing regarding these factual allegations. This speculative reasoning does not render the contested finding of fact erroneous. The Alaska Bar Association states that normally a copy of a respondent's answer to the request is sent to the complainant for further response. If Evans had answered within twenty days after receiving the December 23, 1980, letter, it is possible that the Alaska Bar Association could have subpoenaed Methvin to attend a hearing before he left the area. Therefore, the Committee did not err in finding that Evans' failure to respond forestalled the investigation. Evans also contends that, in any case, there was no need for factual development because his failure to respond to the request resulted in Methvin's allegations being deemed admitted by default. Given this fact, he finds it especially [e]gregious for the Committee to hold against him his failure to review the Methvin case file or to bring it with him to the hearing. This contention ignores several facts. First, Evans denied all but one of Methvin's allegations in his response to the petition for hearing. Second, Evans presented his version of the facts in his initial statement before the Committee. Third, he later indicated surprise that a default may have taken effect before the hearing. Under these circumstances, one would reasonably expect Evans to have had a better grasp of the pertinent facts. Although it may be true that the development of facts would not have affected the finding that the disciplinary rules had been violated, a more complete factual development could have affected the Committee's recommendation of a sanction. Therefore, we believe the Committee's conclusion that Evans made little effort to assist the committee in resolving issues presented to be just and well-supported by the record.