Opinion ID: 1382112
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Past Misconduct

Text: Ligon argues that the Special Judge erred in holding that it is inappropriate for Petitioner to recite past misconduct of a respondent attorney in the petition for disbarment, and that ruling should be reversed. Again, we disagree. According to Ligon, [a] Committee panel ballot vote on a complaint is a `snap-shot in time' on that one matter. The Committee panel members vote on the rule violations in the complaint, and only if one or more rule violations are found by a majority vote are the panel members provided with information concerning prior discipline of the respondent attorney. In this case, after finding rules violations in the Stallings and Judge Wright complaints, the panel would have then had his entire disciplinary history available as it deliberated the sanction to recommend on those two cases. Ligon states that as a result of this procedural directive, the Office of Professional Conduct has been drafting disbarment petitions to include all aggravating factors it knows of at the time the petition is drafted and filed. This procedure gives the respondent attorney notice of aggravating evidence the petitioner will present at trial and a chance to respond or object to it. Since all disbarment proceedings are bench trials, the judge should be able to disregard recitations of aggravating factors from a petitioner, and any mitigating factors from a respondent in any response to the petition or any other pleading. While this court agrees that special judges are able to disregard certain information, matters used at trial and not included in the petition for disbarment are not to be allowed in that particular disbarment proceeding unless the pleadings are amended and notice given to respondent attorney. There was ample evidence that Price violated numerous Model Rules, as set forth in the Stallings complaint and Judge Wright's complaint, which were the only two Committee complaints receiving a majority vote to initiate disbarment proceedings. Therefore, the other complaints and past misconduct should not have been included in the petition for disbarment. This same evidence, however, may be relevant as aggravating factors to be considered in determining a sanction. Section 13(B) Procedures Regulating Professional Conduct. Order of Disbarment Issued. THORNTON, J., not participating.