Opinion ID: 2176514
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hearing Committee's Recommendation as to Sanctions

Text: The Hearing Committee felt that the circumstances of Respondent's neglect violation, even considering Respondent's record of prior discipline, would ordinarily warrant only public censure of Respondent. However, the Hearing Committee concluded from the record before it that there was such a great risk that Respondent would neglect client matters in the future, that a different sanction was warranted. The Hearing Committee thus recommended that Respondent be required to work with a Practice Monitor for one year. To effectively implement this monitorship, the Committee went on to recommend that Respondent be given a 30-day suspension, with the suspension held in abeyance during a one-year probationary period. The practice monitorship was made a condition of probation. In addition, the Hearing Committee recommended that Respondent be required to refund the $750 fee he had received. By letter dated May 18, 1992, Bar Counsel noted what it called a protective exception to the sanction aspect of the Hearing Committee's report ... in the event that the Board is not inclined to adopt the sanction recommendation of the Committee. Respondent objected to the recommendation, stating that the appropriate sanction should not exceed a censure and should not be increased so as to impose a period of probationary supervision. See Respondent's Objections to Recommendation of Sanction, dated June 2, 1992. [3]