Opinion ID: 2518069
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Balancing the aggravators and mitigators

Text: ¶ 67 The Board should deviate from the presumptive sanction only if the aggravating or mitigating factors are sufficiently compelling to justify a departure. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Burtch, 162 Wash.2d 873, 899, 175 P.3d 1070 (2008). Here, the presumptive sanction is disbarment. The only mitigating factors are Preszler's character and reputation and his lack of a prior disciplinary record. These factors are offset by the aggravating circumstances. Preszler has substantial experience practicing law. He committed four separate counts of ethical misconduct (assuming counts 14 and 15 are merged). Preszler presents few reasons to mitigate from disbarment. ¶ 68 This is a close case, however, and the Board recommended a suspension of three years. Although we disagree with the Board that the mitigating factors of cooperation with the disciplinary proceeding and timely good faith restitution can apply, the Board gave the latter factor little weight. We are willing to accept the Board's balancing of the aggravating and mitigating factors. Although the ultimate responsibility for determining the nature of discipline rests with this court and not the Disciplinary Board, we rely on the Board's expertise and have chosen to be guided by the recommendations of the Disciplinary Board. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Noble, 100 Wash.2d 88, 95, 667 P.2d 608 (1983). The court will adopt the Board's recommended sanction unless the sanction is not proportionate or the Board was not unanimous in its decision. Burtch, 162 Wash.2d at 900, 175 P.3d 1070 (citing In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Miller, 149 Wash.2d 262, 277-78, 66 P.3d 1069 (2003)).