Opinion ID: 1408147
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Triem engaged in dishonesty in McCarty.

Text: The relevant facts in the McCarty matter are not contested. The only issue is whether Triem's failure to notify McCarty that he had taken actions to render his earlier statements false constitutes dishonesty in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). In finding a violation, the committee concluded that: a statement is no less false because it was rendered false after the statement was made. Mr. Triem intentionally rendered his statement to Mr. McCarty false by his act of retrieving the discovery materials from the mail. By so doing, he had the affirmative duty to contact Mr. McCarty and correct his statement. Triem contends that Bar Counsel failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the essential element of intent to commit dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Triem argues a contract theory to explain the exchange between himself and McCarty. He argues that his offer to send the discovery materials was rejected when McCarty responded with a nonconforming demand that the materials be faxed by noon that day. Given this explanation, Triem contends, Bar Counsel has failed to show that Triem acted with dishonest intent. We have held that intent is required to find a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). In re West, 805 P.2d at 353. However, it is permissible to infer that an accused intends the natural and probable consequences of his or her knowing actions. Calantas v. State, 608 P.2d 34, 36 (Alaska 1980). Triem's contract explanation of his actions in McCarty is unpersuasive. Triem's letter to McCarty did not offer to send the discovery materials; it stated that Triem already had sent them in yesterday's mail. In his postscript to the letter, Triem offered to fax the materials. The dishonesty found by the committee was not the failure to fax the materials, but Triem's retrieval of them from the post office and his failure to notify McCarty of this fact. It is reasonable to infer that Triem intended to render his earlier statement false when he retrieved the discovery materials and did not notify McCarty of this fact. [23] Therefore, we hold the record provides substantial evidence that Triem had the necessary intent to be act dishonestly in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). Under the ABA Standards, false statements, fraud, and misrepresentation can be sanctioned by disbarment, suspension, reprimand, or an admonition. ABA Standards § 6.1. Reprimands are generally reserved for cases in which lawyers negligently make false statements or fail to take remedial actions when material information is withheld. ABA Standards § 6.13. Although we hold that Triem acted with intentional dishonesty, we impose the sanction of public censure. We note that Triem did not submit false documents to the court and that although his failure to comply with discovery could be broadly interpreted as the withholding of material information from the court, Triem was penalized for this discovery abuse by the trial court's entry of a default judgment against him and the other defendants. Nonetheless, as the committee observed, integrity is, and ought to be, the cornerstone of attorney ethics. Deceit to gain monetary advantage is no more or less culpable than to gain emotional satisfaction or retribution. Conduct such as Triem's contributes to the perpetuation of the stereotype of lawyers as unscrupulous and unprincipled. To combat this stereotype, we hold that public censure of Triem is warranted. [24]