Opinion ID: 1402529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: a thirty-day suspension is an appropriate sanction for respondent's professional misconduct

Text: ¶ 13 The primary purpose for imposing professional discipline is not to punish the offender but to protect the public by a thorough inquest into the respondent's continued fitness to practice law. [23] Imposition of discipline is designed to foster these aims rather than to be a purely punitive measure for a lawyer's misconduct. Mitigating circumstances may be considered in assessing the quantum of discipline that is appropriate. [24] ¶ 14 As for mitigating factors, we are reliably informed that respondent has repaid the borrowed funds [25] and cooperated throughout the disciplinary proceedings. Respondent's professional record reflects neither previous blemishes nor a pattern of misconduct. Moreover, the record shows that respondent's misconduct neither resulted from a client's deception nor caused grave economic harm. [26] ¶ 15 Although both the PRT and the Bar recommend that respondent be privately reprimanded (and that he bear the costs of these proceedings), the court is of the view and holds that the severity of the offence ( combined with a lack of compelling mitigating factors ) warrants a license suspension for thirty days. ¶ 16 Respondent's misconduct results from three separate violations of the ORPC. Upon de novo review, the court concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence of respondent's violations charged in the complaint. In appropriate instances an attorney may be disciplined more severely than the PRT and Bar have recommended. This is especially true when the degree of discipline the court imposes is consistent with other decisions in like cases. ¶ 17 Respondent's license to practice law is accordingly suspended for thirty days and he shall pay the costs of this proceeding  in the sum of $227.23  not later than ninety days after this opinion becomes final. ¶ 18 SUMMERS, C.J., and LAVENDER, KAUGER, WATT, and BOUDREAU, JJ., concur. ¶ 19 HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and HODGES, J., concur in part and dissent in part. HODGES, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. ¶ 1 I would impose a public reprimand.