Opinion ID: 1408147
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Misrepresentation and misinterpretation of Triem's disciplinary record

Text: Triem argues that Bar Counsel misrepresented and exaggerated his prior discipline. In the petition for a formal hearing in the consolidated Lubin and Zorich matters, Bar Counsel stated that [d]uring the period he represented Mr. Zorich, Mr. Triem was on probation under Alaska Bar Rule 16(a)(3) for engaging in five previous instances of neglect under the Alaska Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 6-101. Bar Counsel admitted that this was a misstatement of Triem's discipline record, [18] and corrected this error in its sanctions brief submitted to the committee. Because Bar Counsel corrected this error before the committee made its final decision, the initial misstatement was harmless. Finally, Triem points out that the Board misinterpreted his prior record when it treated Triem's previous offenses similar in nature to the dishonesty and neglect [alleged in McCarty and Zorich] as an aggravating factor in the present cases. The hearing committee in Triem's prior disciplinary proceeding specifically held that Triem had not been guilty of dishonesty. Our independent review of the case cures whatever prejudicial impact this misunderstanding of Triem's prior discipline might have had on the Board's recommendation. Therefore, any misunderstanding was harmless error.