Opinion ID: 2334867
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Misconduct Established in the Arizona Proceeding

Text: The Arizona Report contains 157 paragraphs in which the Hearing Officer states the underlying facts as revealed in 14 separate investigative files involved in this matter. Immediately thereafter the report describes conditional admissions filed by the parties with respect to each of the 14 investigative files. See Arizona Report ¶¶ 157-169. Regarding the first four files discussed in the report (File Nos. 02-0068, 02-1576, 02-2188, and 03-0030) and in eight other files (File Nos. 03-0632, 04-0812, 04-0895, 04-0982, 04-1122, 04-1149, 04-1205, and 04-1265), the report states, among other things, that Respondent conditionally admits his conduct in this file violated Rule 42, Ariz. R.S. Ct. . . ., ER 1.15 (safekeeping property). Arizona Report, ¶¶ 158-159, 164-169. That Arizona rule (ER 1.15) is not materially different from D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15, the rule under which misappropriation of client funds is commonly charged by District of Columbia Bar Counsel. Moreover, the Hearing Officer wrote that based on an Arizona Staff Examiner's review of a reconstruction of Respondent's trust account transactions, Respondent temporarily misappropriated a number of clients' funds. Arizona Report ¶¶ 40-47. We thus read the Arizona Report as finding 12 instances of misappropriation on the part of Respondent. With respect to each instance of misappropriation, however, the Arizona State Bar made a critical admission that it could not prove a violation of . . . ER 8.4(c) (misconduct involving dishonesty) due to a lack of clear and convincing evidence that Respondent had the requisite intentional state of mind. See, e.g., Arizona Report ¶¶ 158, 164. [3] Nothing in the record suggests that the Hearing Officer made any finding that was not in accordance with the parties' conditional admissions. We therefore take as established in this reciprocal proceeding that the misappropriations are part of the misconduct for which Respondent was disciplined in Arizona, but we also recognize the force of the Arizona State Bar's conditional admission that the requisite intentional state of mind for misconduct involving dishonesty was not established by clear and convincing evidence in the Arizona proceeding. Id. In sum, the misappropriations for which Respondent was disciplined in Arizona were not established to have been intentional or reckless. Apart from the misappropriation violations, Respondent's disciplinary offenses are many and, in some cases, serious. The other principal disciplinary offenses include eight violations of rules governing lack of diligence, nine cases of failure to communicate with clients, 16 instances of misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and 15 knowing failures to respond to a disciplinary authority's lawful demands for information. Moreover, the Hearing Officer found that this extraordinary tally of serious offenses was aggravated by Respondent's bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency and his indifference to making restitution. Arizona Report, p. 30. But the Hearing Officer also found four factors in mitigation, which she took into account when selecting the appropriate sanction. First, Respondent had no previous disciplinary record. Second, he had experienced personal or emotional problems, the nature of which is not given in the record on this reciprocal matter, but was spelled out in the parties' conditional admissions and the Joint Memorandum that were filed under seal in the Arizona proceeding. Third, Respondent made a full and free disclosure to [the] disciplinary board [and showed] a cooperative attitude toward [the] proceedings. [4] And fourth, the Hearing Officer had no doubt of [his] remorse. Id.