Opinion ID: 2516942
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Full and free disclosure to Board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings

Text: ¶ 60 Trejo argues that this court should overrule its prior case law holding that the mitigating factor proposed by ABA Standards standard 9.32(e) does not apply in Washington. Appellant's Am. Opening Br. at 48 (citing In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dynan, 152 Wash.2d 601, 98 P.3d 444 (2004); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitt, 149 Wash.2d 707, 721, 72 P.3d 173 (2003)). Trejo is mistaken. We recently held that [c]ooperation with the disciplinary proceedings as a mitigating factor may be appropriate in some cases. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dornay, 160 Wash.2d 671, 686, 161 P.3d 333 (2007). ¶ 61 In Dornay we deferred to the Board's determination that an attorney fully cooperated with the disciplinary proceedings. Id. In this case, the hearing officer refused to consider this mitigating factor, believing it to be nonapplicable in Washington. The Board did not address this issue. Thus, unlike the situation in Dornay, there is no finding of full cooperation by the hearing officer or Board. ¶ 62 The mitigating factor of full and free disclosure to a disciplinary board or a cooperative attitude toward proceedings applies in situations where an attorney goes above and beyond the compliance required in a disciplinary investigation or proceeding. An attorney must cooperate with a bar investigation and proceeding. See, e.g., ELC 5.3(e), 5.5(c), 10.11(g), 10.13(b), (c), 15.2. With regard to trust accounts, a lawyer who is subjected to an examination, investigation, or audit by the WSBA must cooperate with the person conducting the examination by, among other things, producing forthwith all evidence, books, records, and papers requested for the examination, investigation, or audit and furnishing forthwith any explanations required for the examination, investigation, or audit. ELC 15.2. For the mitigating factor of disclosure or cooperation to apply, the disciplined attorney must show that his or her disclosure or cooperation surpassed what is required from all attorneys. ¶ 63 In this case, Trejo argues that his extraordinary cooperation subjected him to additional charges. Appellant's Am. Opening Br. at 41. He provides no support for this assertion. At the hearing, the auditor testified that Trejo was cooperative and produced all of the materials that she requested. When the WSBA requested an explanation for the overdraft, Trejo explained the check-floating situation and disclosed Alvarez's misappropriation of two checks. The WSBA was unaware of Alvarez's misappropriation before Trejo's disclosure. Trejo went beyond the requirements of ELC 5.3(e) and 15.2(b) by volunteering information of possible misconduct that was outside of the scope of the explanation requested by the WSBA. While there is no evidence that this additional information was the basis of any additional charges, we hold that the mitigating factor of free and full disclosure to the Board applies.