Opinion ID: 1161045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: respondent's misconduct warrants the imposition of a two-year suspension from the practice of law together with the payment of the costs of this proceeding

Text: ¶ 28 The preamble to the ORPC states, [a] lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. These relationships entail responsibilities, many of which are prescribed by the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer's misconduct adversely reflects on the entire legal profession, evidencing a lack of commitment to the lawyer's client and a disregard for the court's expectations and the ideals of the profession. [25] Neglect or violation of a lawyer's responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which that independence serves. [26] ¶ 29 The object of a disciplinary proceeding is not to punish, but rather to evaluate a lawyer's continued fitness to practice law in light of this court's obligation to safeguard the interest of the public, of the judiciary, and of the legal profession. [27] A license to practice law is not conferred for the benefit of an individual, but for that of the public. In discharging this court's responsibility to discipline lawyers, we act primarily for the welfare of the public and in the interest of ensuring the proper administration of judicial or legal process. [28] ¶ 30 Respondent's conduct warrants discipline not for punishment's sake, but in the interest of assuring the integrity of the legal profession and deterring others from engaging in similar acts of misconduct. Respondent's admitted violations, involving conflict of interest and business dealings with a client, and the additional violation found from the record by the court (which consists of respondent's failure to adhere to the fiduciary standard of conduct obligatory on a trustee) are serious offenses. Considered together, they all reflect, at a minimum a misunderstanding and, at worst, a disregard of a lawyer's fundamental duty of loyalty to one's client. ¶ 31 In mitigation, respondent's willingness to assume responsibility for her wrongdoing even before the situation was brought to the Bar's attention, the evidence that those who know her well think highly of her personal honesty and integrity, and respondent's complete cooperation with the Bar in this proceeding convince us that respondent is likely to learn from this experience and become an ethically fit lawyer.