Opinion ID: 1172133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Mitigating Factors are Insufficient To Avoid Disbarment

Text: Lau stipulated to, and the Disciplinary Board adopted, the following mitigating factors: 1. [Lau] did not act with a dishonest or selfish motive. 2. [Lau] has exhibited a cooperative attitude toward these proceedings. 3. [Lau] has expressed remorse for his conduct. 4. [Lau] refunded the $1,500.00 which he had collected from Tsugawa. In Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Silva, 63 Haw. 585, 633 P.2d 538 (1981), we noted that where misconduct is severe and extensive and includes misappropriation of clients' funds, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to establish sufficiently strong evidence of mitigation to warrant a penalty lesser than disbarment. In Silva, the respondent represented the heirs of an estate and converted approximately $8,646 of the estate's funds to his own use and benefit. He also failed to pay estate bills, made misrepresentations to his clients, failed to surrender estate funds and render an accounting, stated that he could improperly influence a public official, gave false testimony, and failed to comply with subpoenas issued by the ODC. In representing a second and third client, the respondent converted more than $6,384 and most of $5,710, respectively, for his own use and benefit. The second client was able to recover all but ninety dollars of the original amount tendered to the respondent, and the respondent eventually delivered the $5,710 to his client. We noted that we had already ruled that the fact that an attorney eventually returns money to his client does not lessen the attorney's culpability. Silva, 63 Haw. at 594, 633 P.2d at 545 (citing Johnson, supra ). The respondent had committed other serious, severe, and extensive disciplinary violations, and we declined to view rehabilitation from alcoholism as a mitigating factor where there was no showing of any real progress by [the] [r]espondent in controlling [the] alcoholism. Id. at 595, 633 P.2d at 545. We have noted that the ultimate sanction of disbarment is inappropriate where mitigating factors are involved. See Kagawa, supra . In Kagawa, a neglect case, we recognized marital difficulties as a mitigating factor where the respondent was not guilty of serious, unethical conduct such as wilful misappropriation which would have warranted ... disbarment and suspended the respondent for four years. In Bergan, supra, a case in which discipline was based upon a plea agreement for drug dealing, we considered service of a criminal sentence, the respondent's assurance that he would not repeat his misconduct, the respect and confidence of business associates, commitment toward self-rehabilitation, and candor, cooperation, repentance, a willingness to accept punishment, and voluntary psychiatric treatment with a favorable prognosis as sufficient to reduce a recommended disbarment to suspension for five years. In Smith, supra, the respondent misappropriated client funds to his own purposes, falsely represented that he was the executor or his deceased client's estate, opened fictitious bank accounts to receive funds from the estate's debtors, misappropriated certain of those funds for his own use, and withheld material information from the probate court in an attempt to deceive the court. We concluded that the respondent's ability to repay misappropriated funds was not a defense to the misdeeds and that restitution to a client after the client took legal action to recover misappropriated funds did not mitigate against disbarment. The mitigating factors in this case are not strong, and the aggravating factors weigh heavy. As previously noted, Lau has been informally admonished four times, and he has twice been suspended from the practice of law. The finding that Lau did not act with a dishonest or selfish motive appears contrary to the stipulated findings that he spent the unearned and misappropriated funds for his own use and benefit on matters unrelated to Tsugawa's case. We have already determined that use of a client's money is inexcusable. See, e.g., Cashman, supra . The fact that Lau has exhibited a cooperative attitude toward these proceedings is laudable, but it is not a mitigating factor where such cooperation has been coerced by our rules. See RSCH 2.12A. Likewise, refunding Tsugawa's money is laudable, but we have already rejected restitution as a mitigating factor. See Kim, supra . Thus, the only mitigating factor left is remorse, and given the many expressions of it in Lau's multiple disciplinary actions, it is a factor that cannot be accorded much weight. In sum, the mitigating factors set out in this case fall far short of the strong mitigating factors required to preclude disbarment.