Opinion ID: 1408147
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Use of Triem's discipline record

Text: Triem argues that Bar Counsel, before the hearing committees and the Board, improperly referred to Triem's past discipline record and to the simultaneous unrelated disciplinary proceedings. It is not error to refer to an attorney's disciplinary record during consideration of the case on the merits. In addition to issuing factual findings and conclusions of law, hearing committees are required to issue sanction recommendations. Alaska Bar R. 12(i), 22( l ). To determine the proper sanction, the ABA Standards dictate consideration of aggravating factors. ABA Standards § 3.0. [17] The aggravating factors include prior offenses, a pattern of misconduct, and multiple offenses. ABA Standards § 9.22(a), (c), (d). If a committee's recommendation is appealed, the Board must review the findings and conclusions and issue its own recommended sanction. Alaska Bar R. 22(n). If the recommended sanction is disbarment, suspension, probation, or public censure, it must be submitted to this court for independent review. Alaska Bar R. 22(n) (citing Alaska Bar R. 16(a)(1)-(4)); Alaska Bar R. 22(r). Knowledge of prior offenses not only is permitted, but is necessary to determine and review sanction recommendations. The ABA Standards, however, contemplate that aggravating factors be considered after a finding of misconduct. ABA Standards § 9.1 (After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating circumstances may be considered in deciding what sanction to impose.). Our Bar Rules do not bifurcate the misconduct determination and the sanction recommendation. Independent review of the entire record by the Board and this court, however, provides a safeguard against any prejudicial impact from references to prior discipline during the consideration of the merits of the case. Furthermore, Triem's prior discipline included ongoing supervision of his work and public notice of this supervision. It would be unrealistic to think that the Southeast Alaska legal community was altogether unaware of Triem's disciplinary record. Therefore, we conclude that it was not error to allow references to Triem's discipline record. Additionally, because the three proceedings could have been consolidated, Bar Counsel's statements to the hearing committees regarding other ongoing proceedings against Triem were also not prejudicial. Cf. In re Wiederholt, 877 P.2d 765, 767 (Alaska 1994) (holding that consolidating grievance proceedings is not prejudicial). Even though we hold that the committees' procedures did not prejudice Triem, as an exercise of our rule-making responsibility we hold that it is preferable that Area Hearing Committees bifurcate the misconduct determination and sanction recommendation as much as possible.
Triem argues that Bar Counsel misrepresented and exaggerated his prior discipline. In the petition for a formal hearing in the consolidated Lubin and Zorich matters, Bar Counsel stated that [d]uring the period he represented Mr. Zorich, Mr. Triem was on probation under Alaska Bar Rule 16(a)(3) for engaging in five previous instances of neglect under the Alaska Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 6-101. Bar Counsel admitted that this was a misstatement of Triem's discipline record, [18] and corrected this error in its sanctions brief submitted to the committee. Because Bar Counsel corrected this error before the committee made its final decision, the initial misstatement was harmless. Finally, Triem points out that the Board misinterpreted his prior record when it treated Triem's previous offenses similar in nature to the dishonesty and neglect [alleged in McCarty and Zorich] as an aggravating factor in the present cases. The hearing committee in Triem's prior disciplinary proceeding specifically held that Triem had not been guilty of dishonesty. Our independent review of the case cures whatever prejudicial impact this misunderstanding of Triem's prior discipline might have had on the Board's recommendation. Therefore, any misunderstanding was harmless error.