Opinion ID: 2184597
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Propriety of Recommended Sanction

Text: Respondent contends that the three-year suspension recommended by the Hearing and Review Boards is an excessive sanction for the instant misconduct. In deciding on an appropriate sentence, the Hearing Board considered the following factors in aggravation: respondent's pattern of misconduct, his selfish motive, the nonconsensual nature of his sexual relations with the women, his inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, and his false testimony before the Commission. In mitigation, the Board considered that this is respondent's first charged instance of misconduct, as well as the testimony of numerous witnesses regarding respondent's good character and reputation in the legal community. We do not believe that the recommended three-year suspension is an excessive sanction. Respondent violated numerous ethical standards in his dealings with three separate clients. He then compounded this misconduct by concealing and denying it while it was under investigation. Moreover, we believe that the seriousness of the violations in this case warrants imposition of the suspension until further order of this court, as recommended by the Hearing Board. Accordingly, we approve in part and reject in part the recommendation of the Review Board, and approve the recommendation of the Hearing Board. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for three years and until further order of this court. Respondent suspended. BILANDIC and McMORROW, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.