Opinion ID: 2626474
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proportionality and Board Unanimity

Text: ¶ 45 Having established the presumptive sanction and weighing the mitigating and aggravating factors, this court considers whether proportionality and Board unanimity factors compel an altering of the Board's recommendation. We uphold the Board's recommendation of a six-month suspension. ¶ 46 This court does not find that a downward departure from the presumptive sanction of suspension would be disproportionate under the circumstances. The three dissenting members in the September 7, 2005, vote later clarified that they voted against the majority because they believed a longer, one-year suspension would have been more appropriate than a six-month suspension. SCP at 11-12. Thus, while we do give less credence to decisions of a divided board, Haley, 156 Wash.2d at 343, 126 P.3d 1262; Whitt, 149 Wash.2d at 723, 72 P.3d 173, the Board's division here is not relevant to determining whether a downward departure from the presumptive sanction of suspension is warranted. The potential injury to Sanchez-Suwaneh and the harm to the legal profession warrants the lower six-month suspension.