Opinion ID: 2831598
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mental State for Count I

Text: Abele argues that substantial evidence does not support the hearing officer's finding that she acted intentionally or with knowledge as required to impose a suspension under Standards 6.22. She asserts that her conduct was negligent rather than knowing. This argument mirrors her argument that she didn't violate the applicable RPCs, as they require more than negligent conduct. As we noted in Part II.A of this opinion, Judge Farris found that Abele's behavior was deliberate, willful, and in bad faith in her unchallenged order of contempt. Additionally, our sufficiency analysis of count I upholds the hearing officer's finding that Abele's conduct was intentional. 20 In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Abele, No. 201,352-0 Standard 6.22 reads: Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows[ 13l that he or she is violating a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding. Standards 6.22 applies to Abele's intentional conduct. We therefore adopt the recommendation and hold that suspension is the presumptive sanction for Abele's conduct under count I.