Opinion ID: 1201636
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: a four-month suspension is an appropriate sanction for respondent's past professional misconduct

Text: The court's responsibility in a disciplinary proceeding is not to punish but to inquire into and gauge a lawyer's continued fitness, with a view to safeguarding the interests of the public, of the courts and of the legal professionals. [48] Imposition of discipline is designed to maintain these goals rather than to be a punitive measure for a lawyer's misconduct. [49] The PRT adopted the parties' stipulation, recommending that Johnston be suspended from the practice of law for four months and pay all costs incurred in this proceeding. [50] Johnston's professional misconduct stems from one incident. He has now returned all of the residual funds he was holding and has paid in full all of the care givers. None of the clients' funds went to pay his attorney's fee. We recently imposed a three-month suspension sanction for a single act of commingling and conversion of client's funds. [51] Johnston is charged with not only commingling and conversion of funds, but also with making a false statement to the court, professional incompetence, failure to act promptly while representing his clients, and failure to communicate with the clients. While Johnston's post-complaint return of the clients' funds operates to bring no detriment to his clients, his actions nonetheless call for discipline. The PRT's recommendation that Johnston be suspended from the practice of law for a four-month period is approved. Within four months of the date of this opinion, Johnston shall pay costs incurred in this proceeding  $284.77. Respondent stands suspended from the practice of law for four months from the day this opinion becomes final; costs shall be paid in full before his reinstatement. HODGES, C.J., LAVENDER, V.C.J., and SIMMS, HARGRAVE, ALMA WILSON and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. KAUGER and WATT, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.