Opinion ID: 2557154
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proposed Guidelines

Text: In response to the Petition for Negotiated Discipline, the Board issued an order on March 11, 2009, that established guidelines for handling such cases and instructed Bar Counsel to pursue vigorously any case in which moral turpitude may reasonably be proven. The Board also required that the Hearing Committee be satisfied, after independent consideration of the record, that all reasonable avenues of investigation have been pursued and that the evidence of moral turpitude is clearly insufficient.... To assist the Hearing Committee in reaching its decision, the Board instructed Bar Counsel to certify ... the following elements: (1) that the crime does not involve moral turpitude per se; (2) that Bar Counsel has exhausted all reasonable means of inquiry to find proof in support of moral turpitude, and explaining those efforts; (3) that Bar Counsel does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove moral turpitude on the facts; (4) that all of the facts relevant to a determination of moral turpitude are set forth in the petition; and (5) that any cases regarding the same or similar offenses have been cited in the petition. The Board also required that the petition specifically articulate the facts relating to moral turpitude and the basis for Bar Counsel's view that no probable cause exists to charge moral turpitude. Regarding the specifics of Rigas's case, the Board stayed its October 2006 order referring the matter to a Hearing Committee for a formal hearing, and instructed Bar Counsel and Rigas to submit an amended petition for negotiated discipline that conformed with the new guidelines. The parties filed an amended petition in April 2009, in which Bar Counsel certified that it could not prove that [Rigas's] conduct involved moral turpitude on the facts and summarized the steps taken in its investigation, in accordance with the Board's guidelines. The Hearing Committee then conducted a limited hearing in June 2009, to determine whether sufficient evidence of moral turpitude existed, and to evaluate the thoroughness of Bar Counsel's investigation into the matter. The Committee questioned Senior Assistant Bar Counsel about her level of diligence in determining that she could not prove the existence of moral turpitude, and also examined Rigas under oath to ascertain[ ] the bona fides of the negotiated discipline. The Hearing Committee ultimately approved the petition in a well-reasoned fourteen-page report. On May 28, 2010, the Board issued its Report and Recommendation to this court, advising that the negotiated discipline is appropriate and the sanction justified.