Opinion ID: 2518069
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: Mitigating: good faith effort to pay restitution

Text: ¶ 85 The hearing officer found Preszler satisfied the mitigating factor of timely good faith effort to pay restitution. The Board, in turn, accepted this finding, but gave it little weight because it found Preszler required Kinnie to sign a release to get her money back. Now the majority flatly rejects mitigation for Preszler's restitution. The majority suggests Preszler did not act on his own initiative because the Gerrards demand[ed] that Preszler make restitution. Majority at 1131-32. In the same vein, it suggests the release Preszler obtained tainted his effort to make restitution. Id. ¶ 86 The majority fundamentally misinterprets the interplay between Preszler and Bill Hames, the Gerrards' bankruptcy attorney. During Hames's phone conversation with Preszler, Hames pointed out that Preszler had made an error on the wild card exemption and that he had erroneously accepted a contingent fee. FFCL at 22, ¶ 45. Hames suggested Preszler make amends by repaying the contingent fee. FFCL at 23, ¶ 45. While it is true in their initial conversation Hames requested that Preszler refund the improperly collected fee, a better way of viewing the interaction is that Hames notified Preszler of his error. In response to that new information, Preszler immediately acknowledged his mistake and reimbursed his trust account for the contingent fee. FFCL at 23, ¶ 46. Labeling Hames's conversation with Preszler a demand, without acknowledging it also served as Preszler's first opportunity to correct his mistake, mischaracterizes the course of events. Upon being notified of his error, Preszler made an immediate good faith effort to repay his former client. ¶ 87 Second, the evidence clearly shows that Hames suggested and offered the release to Preszlernot the other way around. The release was Hames's idea. Preszler did not require the Gerrards to sign anything before he made restitution. Yet the majority rebukes Preszler to suggest he was not yet prepared to assume responsibility for the consequences of his actions. Majority at 1132. Requiring Preszler to decline a release confuses remorse with stupidity. Remorse, or even assuming responsibility for his actions, did not require Preszler to expose himself to liability, let alone look a gift horse in the mouth, in order to make a good faith effort to pay restitution. In any event, Preszler voluntarily withdrew the release while the decision of the first hearing officer was pending. ¶ 88 The majority improperly rejects Preszler's good faith effort to make restitution. I would give this mitigator its proper undiminished weight.