Opinion ID: 2614963
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Appropriateness of Suspension

Text: Although the Committee and the Commission agreed that suspension was appropriate, the Committee recommended a six-month suspension, while the Commission recommended eighteen months instead. The ABA Standards speak to when suspension is warranted. When a lawyer lacks competence and violates our professional rules, [s]uspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an area of practice in which the lawyer knows he or she is not competent, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. Standard 4.52, ABA Standards, at 33. As to the lack of diligence: [S]uspension is generally appropriate when: (a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or (b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client. Standard 4.42, ABA Standards, at 32. Respondent also admits that he violated the ethical rules by failing to respond to bar inquiries in a timely manner. The Committee and the Commission also considered this violation when they determined that suspension was the appropriate remedy. Standard 7.0 governs duties owed to the profession and provides that [s]uspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. Standard 7.0, ABA Standards, at 45. With this in mind, we turn to our determination of the appropriate sanction.