Opinion ID: 1980664
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Ms. Soininen's earlier suspension by this court.

Text: The first unique or compelling circumstance relied upon by the Board was that Ms. Soininen has already been subjected to a lengthy suspension. The suspension to which the Board referred, however, was issued on September 9, 1999, as an interim suspension in Soininen I. This suspension resulted from ethical violations different from those now before us in Soininen II. Moreover, given the criminal conduct with which Ms. Soininen had been charged, and of which she had been convicted, there was nothing at all unique about this interim suspension, nor did she have a compelling case against it. Indeed, but for the lenient treatment secured for her by her own insobriety under the controlling Kersey doctrine, Ms. Soininen might ultimately have been suspended for a substantial period and required to demonstrate fitness as a condition of reinstatement. We conclude that the interim suspension imposed on Ms. Soininen as a result of the crimes she committed in Soininen I does not provide a unique or compelling reason to justify nunc pro tunc treatment in relation to the extensive unauthorized practice and numerous false representations that are the subject of Soininen II.