Opinion ID: 2518069
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Mitigating: cooperation with the disciplinary proceeding

Text: ¶ 55 Another mitigating factor at issue is full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings. ABA STANDARDS std. 9.32(e). The Board, without explanation, accepted the hearing officer's finding that this mitigating factor applied. Not long ago, we refused to recognize that an attorney's full disclosure or cooperation could ever be a mitigating factor. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dynan, 152 Wash.2d 601, 622, 98 P.3d 444 (2004) (Although the ABA Standards list this as a mitigating factor, the court has held that it is not.); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Huddleston, 137 Wash.2d 560, 579, 974 P.2d 325 (1999) ([C]ooperating with the disciplinary proceedings is not a mitigating factor, even though lack of cooperation may be an aggravating factor.). We have since acknowledged, however, that [c]ooperation with the disciplinary proceedings as a mitigating factor may be appropriate in some cases, In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dornay, 160 Wash.2d 671, 686, 161 P.3d 333 (2007). But not all instances of cooperation deserve a mitigated sanction. ¶ 56 This mitigating factor applies only in situations where an attorney goes above and beyond the compliance required in a disciplinary investigation or proceeding. Trejo, 163 Wash.2d at 732, 185 P.3d 1160 (emphasis added). Mitigation for ordinary compliance is inappropriate because [i]t is the duty of every attorney to cooperate with a bar investigation. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Johnson, 114 Wash.2d 737, 747, 790 P.2d 1227 (1990). Failure to comply with the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELC) governing the disciplinary investigation or proceeding is an ethical violation under RPC 8.4( l ), for which the lawyer may be admonished, reprimanded, suspended, or disbarred. ELC 1.5. Noncompliance may also be an aggravating factor that triggers a stiffer sanction for prior misconduct. See ABA STANDARDS std. 9.22(e). Ordinary cooperation and full disclosure are simply ways of avoiding additional charges or a harsher sanction for existing charges, and not a basis for mitigation. The burden is on the attorney to show that his or her disclosure or cooperation surpassed what is required from all attorneys. Trejo, 163 Wash.2d at 733, 185 P.3d 1160 (emphasis added). Even if the attorney carries this burden, it is not a particularly significant mitigating factor in determining an appropriate sanction. Johnson, 114 Wash.2d at 747, 790 P.2d 1227. ¶ 57 Nothing in the record suggests that Preszler went above and beyond his duties under the ELCs and RPC 8.4( l ) to cooperate fully with the disciplinary proceeding. To the contrary, some evidence suggests that Preszler obstructed the proceeding. The WSBA filed a formal complaint against Preszler on October 4, 2004. Although ELC 10.5(a) required Preszler to file and serve an answer within 20 days, Preszler did not do so until March 4, 2005five months later. Not only was Preszler unresponsive, but the hearing officer also found he was an unreliable historian with regard to the facts of this case. DP at 25. This finding was adopted by the Board, as were all the hearing officer's findings of fact. DP at 39. According to the hearing officer, Preszler told different stories in a February 11, 2004 letter to the WSBA, at a later deposition, and again at the hearing itself. That is not extraordinary disclosure worthy of sanction mitigation. Preszler does not deserve mitigation for his cooperation with the disciplinary proceeding.