Opinion ID: 2631751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Is the sanction imposed by the Board appropriate?

Text: ¶ 51 The American Bar Association (ABA) Standards guide this court's determination of appropriate sanctions in bar disciplinary cases. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Haley, 156 Wash.2d 324, 339, 126 P.3d 1262 (2006). First, we determine the presumptive sanction based on the ethical duty violated, the attorney's mental state, and the extent of actual or potential harm caused by the conduct. Id. Second, we consider aggravating and mitigating factors, which may alter the presumptive sanction. Id. We will generally adopt the Board's recommended sanction unless the sanction departs significantly from sanctions imposed in other cases or the Board was not unanimous in its decision. Id. ¶ 52 Here, the Board unanimously adopted the hearing officer's recommended sanctiona one year suspension. ¶ 53 The ABA Standards provide that in cases involving an attorney's failure to avoid conflicts of interest Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows of a conflict of interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. ABA STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS std. 4.32 (1991). The length of suspensions generally should be between six months and three years. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Halverson, 140 Wash.2d 475, 495, 998 P.2d 833 (2000). The length of the suspension is also affected by the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors. ¶ 54 Here, the hearing officer found the following aggravating factors, set forth in ABA Standards std. 9.22: (a) prior disciplinary offenses [Respondent received a stipulated censure in February 2000 for his unauthorized contact with a person represented by counsel; in a different case, Respondent's appeal is pending regarding the Disciplinary Board's recommendation that Respondent be suspended for 6 months for knowingly engaging in conflicts of interest with his client and for six months for contacting a person represented by counsel without authority]; (b) dishonest or selfish motive; (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; (i) substantial experience in the practice of law (lawyer since 1979). CP at 302. The hearing officer found the following mitigating factor, set forth in ABA Standards std. 9.32:(j) delay in disciplinary proceedings (agreements signed in 1993). ¶ 55 Mr. Haley argues that the aggravator prior disciplinary offense is not proper because [i]n 1993 when these events occurred, I had not been disciplined for anything and, to my knowledge, no grievance had ever been filed against me. Br. of Resp't at 26. ¶ 56 This court has previously held that an after-the-fact offense operates as a prior offense for aggravating factor purposes as long as the lawyer knew he or she was under investigation for the older offense when committing the more recent offense. Haley, 156 Wash.2d at 341, 126 P.3d 1262. Here, Mr. Haley committed the instant offense in 1993 and was charged with the violations in 2004. The more recent offenses occurred before 2004; thus, Mr. Haley is correct that this court should not consider the other disciplinary proceedings because he was not under investigation for the current offense when he committed the subsequent offense. ¶ 57 However, the remaining aggravating factors apply and are supported by the evidence: Mr. Haley's violations were at the expense of his client but to his benefit, Mr. Haley continues to deny the wrongful nature of his conduct, and Mr. Haley has substantial experience in the practice of law. Thus, the Board's unanimous decision to suspend Mr. Haley for one year is appropriate.