Opinion ID: 1408147
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Prejudicial delay in McCarty

Text: Triem argues that he was prejudiced by Bar Counsel's one-year delay in filing the formal petition in McCarty. [16] Bar Counsel responds that the filing of the McCarty petition was delayed to avoid the hardship to Triem of having to defend against the Lubin/Zorich charges and the McCarty charges at the same time. Triem's allegations of prejudice ignore the reality that the facts in McCarty are undisputed. The only open issue was the legal consequence of Triem's actions, specifically whether they represented dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). While a one-year delay seems unwarranted, it did not harm Triem's ability to present arguments regarding the application of the law to the facts of his case. Therefore, we find that the delay did not unduly prejudice Triem.