Opinion ID: 2518069
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Should counts 14 and 15 merge?

Text: ¶ 23 Preszler argues that counts 14 and 15 should merge because they deal with the same conduct and the same rule[former] RPC 8.4(d). Opening Br. of Resp't Preszler at 27. The hearing officer's written findings for count 14 said, By disbursing to himself from his trust account a portion of the personal-injury proceeds, Mr. Preszler knowingly disobeyed obligations under the bankruptcy rules in violation of [former] RPC 3.4(c) and engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of [former] RPC 8.4(d). DP at 32, ¶ 57. For count 15, the hearing officer found, By disbursing the personal-injury proceeds to himself without the consent, knowledge, or authority of the bankruptcy Trustee and bankruptcy Court, Mr. Preszler knowingly violated bankruptcy rules with the intent to gain a benefit for himself. DP at 33, ¶ 58 (emphasis added). ¶ 24 The WSBA's complaint charged each count with different accompanying RPCs and different underlying misconduct. Count 14 alleged Preszler violated former RPC 3.4(c), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and former 8.4(j)(2002) [b]y disbursing the personal injury proceeds to himself without the consent, knowledge, or authority of the Bankruptcy Court and/or in violation of the Order Approving Employment. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 41; DP at 4 (emphasis added). Count 15 alleged Preszler violated former RPC 1.14(a) (2002), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) [b]y disbursing the personal injury proceeds to himself without the consent, knowledge, or authority of the bankruptcy trustee.  CP at 41; DP at 4 (emphasis added). ¶ 25 Nevertheless, because the merger issue ultimately has no bearing on our final conclusion, we assume, without deciding, that the counts should be merged.