Opinion ID: 1497626
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Factors Governing Discipline

Text: OCDC argues that the only possible discipline for a misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. Mr. Belz accepts that disbarment is the appropriate baseline standard for cases involving misappropriation of funds, but he argues that in this case numerous mitigating factors are present that counsel for a less severe punishment, including his bipolar disorder and his subsequent meaningful recovery, his self-reporting of his violations, his record-keeping with regard to the monies misappropriated, his restitution prior to reporting or any investigation, his remorse, the lack of actual harm to his clients who have remained his clients even after learning of his conduct, his present medical treatment and his recognition that he will need to continue to take medication. He contends that a stayed suspension with probation would be appropriate under these facts. Both OCDC and Mr. Belz rely on the ABA Standards to support their positions, which is appropriate under this Court's precedents. See, e.g., In re Crews, 159 S.W.3d 355, 360-61 (Mo. banc 2005) (reciting ABA Standards and noting that the Court considers the ABA Standards when determining what level of discipline to impose); In re Griffey, 873 S.W.2d 600, 603 (Mo. banc 1994) (noting adherence to ABA Standards in disbarment case). It is to the ABA Standards that this Court now turns. ABA Standard 3.0 states that courts should consider four primary factors when imposing sanctions after a finding that a lawyer has committed professional misconduct: (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. These four factors in Standard 3.0 provide the basic framework for all disciplinary matters, while the remaining standards provide guidance as to appropriate sanctions for specific types of misconduct. Standard 4.1 offers guidance when lawyers fail to preserve their client's property, as Mr. Belz has done here. It provides that  [a]bsent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0 ... disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client. ABA Standards 4.11 (emphasis added). [2] This, OCDC notes, is the baseline sanction for such misconduct. Mitigating factors, such as mental illness, do not constitute a defense to a finding that such misconduct occurred, but rather constitute considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. ABA Standards 9.31 (defining mitigating circumstances).