Opinion ID: 1163307
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Behavior Subject to Discipline

Text: Smith contends that the judgment of disbarment in the action is not supported by any misconduct, criminal or otherwise.... It is grounded on an alleged criminal conviction which is constitutionally infirm and absolutely void. Yet the record shows unequivocally that Smith's criminal convictions in Wisconsin are not merely alleged. They are supported by certified copies of the conviction judgments and admitted by Smith himself. Under RLDD 19(e), [e]xcept as provided in paragraph (b), a certified copy of a judgment of conviction constitutes conclusive evidence that the Respondent committed the crime. [3] Following his convictions, Smith made four separate attempts in Wisconsin to persuade courts of review that the trial court's decision was constitutionally infirm, all without success. Once again, we will not attempt to second-guess the decisions of the Wisconsin courts which had access to the full record and conducted adversarial proceedings. The relitigation of a lawyer's guilt, whether decided by the forum state or a foreign court, has no place in a disciplinary hearing, nor can an appeal of the Utah disciplinary measures be appropriated to collaterally attack the decision of a foreign court. See Maryland State Bar v. Rosenberg, 273 Md. 351, 329 A.2d 106, 108 (1974) (new inquiry into guilt of attorney for disciplinary purposes not mandated when guilt established beyond reasonable doubt at criminal trial observing due process). We adopted the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (Standards), which serve to implement the Rules of Professional Conduct, not as a punitive measure, but rather to foster a legal community worthy of public confidence. The stated objectives of the Standards are to ensure and maintain the requisite high standard of professional conduct among lawyers and to protect the public and the administration of justice from lawyers who have demonstrated by their conduct that they are unable or likely to be unable to discharge properly their professional responsibilities. Standards, rule 1.1 (1993); see also In re Strong, 616 P.2d at 585. Standards rule 4.2 states: Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer: (a) knowingly engages in professional misconduct ... with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another or to deceive the court, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, the public or the legal system ... or (b) engages in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of which includes intentional interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud ... or theft . . . . (Emphasis added.) Smith was convicted of theft by fraud and two counts of false swearing. Therefore, by definition, his Wisconsin convictions subject him to disbarment in Utah.