Opinion ID: 2599802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Other Mitigators

Text: ¶ 44 The Board unanimously concluded the hearing officer improperly applied three mitigating factors. The Board struck the mitigator of timely good faith effort to rectify consequences of misconduct based on Dornay's experience as a prosecutor trying domestic violence cases. The Board found Dornay understood the danger to the child in delaying truthful testimony. The Board also struck the mitigator of imposition of other penalties and sanctions due to insufficient evidence proving Dornay suffered any other penalties or sanctions from her conduct. Board Order at 6. ¶ 45 Finally, the Board struck the mitigator of remorse but did not explain its reasoning for removing it. Board Order at 6. In the hearing officer's recommendation, he stated Dornay felt guilty and remorseful from the time she testified on February 13, 2002. FOF at 22. ¶ 46 Here, Dornay continues to assert that her behavior was not misconduct, and she argues no sanctions are appropriate. Because Dornay's conduct involved dishonesty and misrepresentation to the court, and considering she admitted to lying under oath yet continues to argue her behavior was not misconduct, we find remorse does not apply as a mitigating factor. ¶ 47 The Board upheld the hearing officer's application of personal or emotional problems as a mitigating factor. The hearing officer reasoned Dornay experienced marital problems and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder because of circumstances involving her extramarital affair with Hick. FOF at 50. ¶ 48 The WSBA does not challenge the application of personal or emotional problems as a mitigating factor, but it does argue the mitigator should receive minimal weight. We disagree. As the hearing officer found: [t]he relationship between Dornay and Hick was intense and emotional. Dornay and Hick argued over the fact that Hick was dating other women, over whether Dornay should or would leave her husband to be with Hick, and over their true intentions in the relationship. Dornay and Hick had a pattern of arguments and reconciliations in the relationship. This pattern is consistent with the cycle of tension, verbal abuse or assault, and a honeymoon period that characterizes domestic violence, or, in this case, intimate partner violence. FOF at 36. ¶ 49 The Washington Legislature and the courts of this state have recognized the profound impact of intimate partner violence. While the nature of Dornay's relationship with Hick does not excuse Dornay's actions, it is a mitigating factor that merits substantial weight. The remaining mitigating factor is absence of a prior disciplinary record and is largely uncontested. FOF at 21-22.