Opinion ID: 2525369
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Mitigating Factors Submitted by Stipulation Which Are Supported by the Record

Text: ¶ 22 On or about 1 September 1993, the date the Tenth Circuit ordered respondent to show cause for his failure to proceed with the Reid and Deanovich appeals, respondent's law partner was hospitalized. [17] He was hospitalized again in October. Due to his medical condition, respondent's partner was unable to work from September until mid-December 1993, and respondent was forced to carry on the practice for both of them. ¶ 23 In a letter to the Tenth Circuit after he received the show-cause order, respondent set out his partner's health problem and asked for additional time to respond. The Court granted him a two-week extension. At no time after obtaining this extension did respondent either submit a response or seek an additional extension of time. Respondent attributes his noncompliance with the show-cause order to the overwhelming work load that his partner's illness shifted to him. While the demands of respondent's active practice on behalf of two lawyers do not excuse his failure to either respond to the show-cause order or communicate to the Tenth Circuit his reasons for being unable to respond, they do operate to mitigate his culpability for this dereliction during the period of his partner's absence. ¶ 24 Although respondent's partner returned to the practice in December 1993, [18] respondent's noncompliance with the show-cause order extended right up to the date he was suspended in February 1994. While respondent's culpability for noncompliance with the Tenth Circuit's order may be mitigated by his partner's absence between September and mid-December, respondent has offered us no explanation in mitigation of his failure to respond to the federal court's order after his partner's return. ¶ 25 In mitigation of his unauthorized practice of law in the Tenth Circuit in 1997, respondent asks us to consider his daughter's premature birth, which coincided with the inception of the Bailey appeal. The record shows that respondent's daughter was born prematurely on 7 March 1997. Respondent informs us in his brief and in his testimony that the care required by his premature baby left him exhausted. [19] In some measure, respondent attributes his unauthorized practice of law to the stress and fatigue he experienced in connection with the birth and care of his premature baby. We have taken respondent's preoccupation with his daughter's care into consideration in assessing an appropriate discipline. ¶ 26 The trial panel also accepted the parties' stipulation in mitigation that respondent has fully cooperated with the Office of the General Counsel, notwithstanding three misrepresentations or inconsistencies appearing in various documents prepared by respondent or on his behalf. [20] We agree that respondent has fully cooperated in the sense that he has provided timely responses to the Bar and to this Court and has answered all questions asked of him. B.