Opinion ID: 1181100
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: unfitness to practice law

Text: The HP officer concluded that the findings as a whole did not warrant a conclusion that Zderic was unfit to practice law under (CPR) DR 1-102(A)(6). He found Zderic's conduct to be careless and neglectful and concluded that this demonstrated a violation of (CPR) DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The Board modified the HP officer's findings to describe Zderic's conduct as incompetent, deceitful, neglectful and unprofessional in several aspects of his practice. Accordingly, the Board modified the HP officer's conclusions, finding a violation of (CPR) DR 1-102(A)(6) (unfit to practice law). Zderic argues that the more serious counts against him, i.e, those involving moral turpitude were not sustained. [2] He argues that at the most, the established counts demonstrate neglectful conduct, for which this court has previously imposed no greater sanction than suspension. Count 1 may be characterized as a charging technique. DRA 1.1(k). The Board's conclusion to that count is the basis for its disciplinary recommendation of disbarment. Thus, consideration of the respondent's objections to count 1 will be deferred until our discussion below of the appropriate sanction.