Opinion ID: 2599802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Mitigating Factor of Cooperation with the Disciplinary Proceedings

Text: ¶ 39 The Board applied a mitigating factor to Dornay's case according to ABA Standards 9.32(e), which provides a reduced degree of discipline if the attorney provides full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings. ¶ 40 The WSBA argues that the court has effectively dispensed with this as a mitigating factor. In Whitt, we stated, An attorney is expected to cooperate fully with the discipline process and should not be rewarded for `coming clean' after lying in the disciplinary proceedings. `[C]ooperating with the disciplinary proceedings is not a mitigating factor, even though lack of cooperation may be an aggravating factor.' In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitt, 149 Wash.2d 707, 721, 72 P.3d 173 (2003) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Huddleston, 137 Wash.2d 560, 579, 974 P.2d 325 (1999)). ¶ 41 While Dornay does not challenge the WSBA's assertion that cooperating with the disciplinary proceedings is not a mitigating factor, we have applied this as a mitigating factor in cases subsequent to Whitt. ¶ 42 In Christopher, the Board adopted all mitigating factors as determined by the hearing officer, including Christopher's cooperation with the disciplinary proceedings. The WSBA did not challenge this as a mitigating factor, and we upheld all the Board's conclusions on the mitigating factors except for one (personal or emotional problems). In re Christopher, 153 Wash.2d at 683-87, 105 P.3d 976. ¶ 43 Cooperation with the disciplinary proceedings as a mitigating factor may be appropriate in some cases. Here, while Dornay did not self-report to the WSBA and she still claims her behavior was not misconduct, we will defer to the Board's finding that Dornay fully cooperated with its disciplinary proceedings.