Opinion ID: 2293985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Parties' Positions on Sanctions

Text: ODC argues that Respondent's guilty pleas to the various crimes committed in the State of Maine constitute violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct as follows: Crimes Rules Violated Falsifying physical evidence Rules 3.4(a); 8.4(b); 8.4(c); 48.4(d) Terrorizing Rule 8.4(b) Assault Rule 8.4(b) Violation of condition of Rules 3.4(c); 8.4(b); and release 8.4(d) (two counts of each) Violation Of Protection Rules 3.4(c); 8.4(b); and From Abuse Order 8.4(d) (two counts of each) Criminal Threatening Rule 8.4(b) ODC asserts that the felony criminal charges to which Respondent pled guilty are grounds for disbarment in the State of Delaware. It is argued that the Supreme Court has consistently imposed the sanction of disbarment for felonies. ODC further asserts the fact the felony charges may be reduced to misdemeanors or dismissed entirely upon completion of probation does not negate that Respondent engaged in felony conduct. (T-254.) In mitigation, ODC argues that Respondent has failed to prove that his brain injuries caused his criminal behavior in 2006 and thus should not be considered as a mitigating factor. (T-272.) ODC also argued that even had there been sufficient evidence to show that the Respondent suffered from a mental illness that would have contributed to the actions for which he was convicted, this is not necessarily a mitigating factor in the imposition of sanctions. Respondent through counsel argued that the criminal activity in which Respondent engaged occurred outside the practice of law and not at a time when he was practicing in Delaware or physically in the State. (T-275.) Respondent further argued that the crimes he committed did not involve fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude. Though the crimes are acknowledged, Respondent argues that he has expressed remorse and suffered collateral consequences for his actions. He also asserts that in mitigation he was suffering the cumulative effects of two brain injuries and the side effects of prescription medications that contributed to his actions. Respondent suggests that the sanction recommended be six months' suspension retroactive to the Court's entry of the Interim Suspension Order on April 30, 2007.