Opinion ID: 2357681
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appropriateness Of The Recommended Sanctions

Text: Cyrus does not contest the factual findings reached by the Committee and adopted by the Board, and we accept them. Our consideration of the initial stage of the ABA analysis is thereby considerably simplified. As to the first prong, the ethical duties violated, the Committee found that: Cyrus had violated duties owed (1) to his clients by (a) failing to communicate with them, (b) failing to appear at hearings, and (c) failing to file pleadings; and (2) to the legal system by (a) causing unnecessary delay in court proceedings, and (b) failing to respond to disciplinary charges. Cyrus acknowledges and admits that he violated these ethical duties. The second prong, Cyrus's mental state, is easily ascertained: Cyrus admits that in light of his prior disciplinary suspension for similar misconduct, he saw these new violations coming and acted with the culpable mental state of knowingly. The third prong, the injury or potential injury caused, is also readily apparent. Cyrus's neglect and failure to communicate resulted in delay and postponement of resolution of his clients' cases. Cyrus acknowledges this resulted in at least potential harm to his clients. In sum, the uncontested facts show that Cyrus knowingly violated ethical duties to his clients and the legal system, which caused at least the potential for injury to his clients.
Our next step is to look to the ABA Standards to discern what sanctions are recommended for the type of misconduct found in our initial inquiry. [19] The ABA Standards state that suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer causes injury or potential injury to a client by knowingly failing to perform services for a client or engaging in a pattern of neglect. [20] Suspension also is generally appropriate when a lawyer causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding by knowingly violating a court order or rule. [21] The Standards suggest such a suspension last from six months to three years before the lawyer may apply for reinstatement. [22] But the Standards further state that [d]isbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer ... has been suspended for the same or similar misconduct, and intentionally or knowingly engages in further acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession. [23]
The final step in our analysis is to determine whether aggravating or mitigating factors should affect the sanction recommended by the ABA Standards. [24] We agree with the Committee's finding, adopted by the Board, that four aggravating factors under ABA Standard 9.2 apply: (1) prior disciplinary offenses; (2) a pattern of misconduct; (3) multiple offenses; and (4) substantial experience in the practice of law. We also agree with the Committee's finding, adopted by the Board, that one mitigating factor under ABA Standard 9.3 applies: Cyrus did not have a dishonest or selfish motive; rather, his conduct stemmed from taking on more work, much of it pro bono in nature, than he could handle in an attempt to help as many clients as possible.
When the Board issued its findings, conclusions, and recommendations, it adopted the Committee's findings and conclusions but rejected without explanation the Committee's recommended sanctions that (1) Cyrus be suspended from the practice of law for three years with six months stayed, and (2) Cyrus's reinstatement be conditioned on proof of his employment with an agency or law firm that can adequately supervise his practice and control his caseload. Instead, the Board recommended more severe sanctions: (1) suspending Cyrus from the practice of law for five years, with two of those years stayed; and (2) following the three years of served suspension, three years of probation, during which Cyrus must practice law solely as an employee of an agency or firm, commit no further disciplinary violations, pay all fines and sanctions, obtain annual certification of employment from his employer, and notify the Bar Association within ten days of any change in his employment status. [25] The Board's recommended sanctions are appropriate. While each individual incident of misconduct might not have been particularly egregious, Cyrus's pattern of neglecting his clients and delaying court matters, after previous discipline for the same conduct, is disconcerting. We agree with Bar Counsel that Cyrus's absence of a dishonest or selfish motive for his misconduct appropriately mitigates the sanction from disbarment to suspension. But Cyrus admits that controlling his calendar is a weakness he cannot overcome and states, unless somebody controls my caseload, I'd probably go down the same way [in the future]. Thus, a lengthy disciplinary suspension and subsequent probation is warranted to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession. [26]