Opinion ID: 2518069
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Step three: proportionality and unanimity of Board recommendation

Text: ¶ 69 Preszler bears the burden of showing the Board's recommended sanction is not proportionate. See Marshall, 160 Wash.2d at 349, 157 P.3d 859. To evaluate a recommended sanction's proportionality, we look to other cases in which we affirmed or rejected the same sanction. Id. at 348, 157 P.3d 859. For count 1, Preszler asks the court to consider our decisions in Brothers, Egger, Cohen I, and In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Heard, 136 Wash.2d 405, 963 P.2d 818 (1998). For counts 14 and 15, Preszler asks us to consider our decisions in VanDerbeek and Schwimmer. ¶ 70 The cases cited by Preszler are not analogous to the circumstances of this case. In Brothers, Cohen I, and Egger, there were no board findings that the presumptive sanction was disbarment. Brothers, 149 Wash.2d at 585, 70 P.3d 940; Cohen I, 149 Wash.2d at 338, 67 P.3d 1086; Egger, 152 Wash.2d at 403, 98 P.3d 477. Also, in contrast to this case, none of the cases cited by Preszler involve a knowing avoidance of laws and court rules designed specifically to monitor the reasonableness of a lawyer's fee. Brothers, 149 Wash.2d at 579-81, 70 P.3d 940; Cohen I, 149 Wash.2d at 327-29, 67 P.3d 1086; Egger, 152 Wash.2d at 398-404, 98 P.3d 477; Heard, 136 Wash.2d at 417-18, 963 P.2d 818. The cases cited by Preszler are not comparable because they deal with a different presumptive sanction and different charge of misconduct. As for VanDerbeek and Schwimmer, we dismissed the Board's recommendation of suspension in favor of disbarring the attorney. VanDerbeek, 153 Wash.2d at 89-100, 101 P.3d 88; Schwimmer, 153 Wash.2d at 758-65, 108 P.3d 761. Preszler has failed to demonstrate how the recommended sanction of a three-year suspension lacks proportionality. ¶ 71 In considering the extent to which the Board's recommendation reflected unanimity, we note that the two dissenting board members suggested disbarment. All members therefore believed at least a three-year suspension is warranted. Of course, [e]ven where a recommendation is unanimous, the court may depart from the recommendation if there are clear reasons for doing so. Dynan, 152 Wash.2d at 625, 98 P.3d 444 (citing Miller, 149 Wash.2d at 285, 66 P.3d 1069). But there are no clear reasons for doing so because too few mitigating circumstances are present.