Opinion ID: 1451051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Bar disciplinary proceedings

Text: After Horwitz pleaded guilty to the criminal charges, the Bar brought disciplinary proceedings against him, alleging that his conduct violated Rule 42, ER 8.4(b) [4] and Rule 51(a). [5] A hearing committee (Committee) conducted a series of hearings and issued a report. [6] See Rules 48(e) and 57(a). The Bar presented no witnesses and relied only on the proof of conviction and various exhibits, such as police reports and transcripts of medical testimony from Horwitz' criminal trial. Based on this evidence, the Committee was unable to conclude that Horwitz' use of cocaine or any other drugs directly caused the accident. Rather, the Committee stated, the cause of the accident must be found to be inattentiveness. Nevertheless, the Committee concluded that Horwitz' conduct violated ER 8.4(b) because his convictions adversely reflected on his fitness as a lawyer. The Committee also found that the two felony convictions were grounds for discipline under Rule 51(a). In the Committee's view, however, disbarment was not appropriate given the charges proven by the Bar and the mitigating factors present. Instead, the Committee recommended that Horwitz be suspended from the practice of law while incarcerated, but in no event for more than five years, and that he be placed on probation for two years after the suspension ends, subject to participation in therapy and drug and alcohol abstinence enforced by random drug tests. The Commission unanimously adopted the Committee's findings but concluded that the Committee failed to adequately consider the aggravating factors. While noting that the mitigating factors outnumbered the aggravating factors, the Commission concluded that the aggravating factors outweighed them and recommended that Horwitz be disbarred.