Opinion ID: 2499757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: deceptive practice during the disciplinary process

Text: Respondent's final argument is that the panel failed to support its description of his performance at the hearing as evasive with specific examples from the record. This failure, he asserts, means that there is no aggravating circumstance of a Deceptive Practice During the Disciplinary Process. We need not reach the question of whether the panel's failure to set out specific examples of evasive behavior or testimony undermines the existence of the aggravating circumstance at the time of the panel hearing or when the panel drafted its Final Hearing Report. We are satisfied that the existence of the aggravating circumstance is amply justified on the overwhelming negative power of Respondent's deceitful behavior in fashioning his exceptions, some of which contradict one another, contradict Respondent's earlier representations (some sworn), or flagrantly misrepresent the record. His assertion that the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator withdrew the county attorney conference allegation rather than amend its date is one example of such a misrepresentation. His assertion that testimony supported the idea that the July 26 date for the client conference was an unintentional error is another. There was no such testimony before the panel. This impression of Respondent's willingness to shade the truth was reinforced by Respondent's brief and by his oral argument before this court. The Deputy Disciplinary Administrator's description of Respondent's approach as a shell game is apt, and we have no hesitation in finding the existence of the aggravating circumstance of a deceptive practice during the disciplinary process.