Opinion ID: 2539169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: RPC 8.4(b)

Text: ¶ 18 A lawyer violates RPC 8.4(b) by committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. The hearing officer found that Cramer committed the violations described above and concluded these actions constituted criminal acts violating both RCW 82.32.290(1) [2] and RCW 82.32.290(2). [3] ¶ 19 Cramer concedes that he committed these violations, but seems to argue that he is not dishonest, untrustworthy, or unfit as a lawyer because by committing these crimes he could avoid his tax liabilities and continue to practice, and that his ability to continue practicing law helped rather than harmed his clients. Pet'r's Br. at 14. We reject his argument. ¶ 20 A clear nexus exists between an attorney's willingness to violate the law and those characteristics relevant to law practice. See In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Curran, 115 Wash.2d 747, 768, 801 P.2d 962 (1990) (conduct reflecting adversely on a lawyer's fitness to practice law can only be found when there is some nexus between the lawyer's conduct and those characteristics relevant to law practice). An attorney's status as an attorney is not an excuse to violate the law, especially when acting on behalf of one's clients. By removing the revocation order posted by DOR and engaging in business without a certificate of registration in order to avoid his tax liabilities, Cramer violated RCW 82.32.290(1) and RPC 8.4(b). By engaging in business after DOR revoked his certificate of registration in order to avoid his tax liabilities, Cramer violated RCW 82.32.290(2) and RPC 8.4(b). We conclude that by violating RPC 8.4(b), Cramer violated Count I.