Opinion ID: 2608925
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona (Commission) recommends respondent, Ernesto R. Castro, be suspended from the practice of law in Arizona for a period of 30 days and pay $500 in restitution. The conduct in question occurred prior to the adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct, effective 1 February 1985. 17A A.R.S.Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 42. The Code of Professional Responsibility (former Rule 29(a)), therefore, applies to the conduct in this case. See In Re Pappas, 159 Ariz. 516, 518, 768 P.2d 1161, 1163 (1988). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3) and 17A A.R.S. Sup.Ct. Rules, Rule 53(e). II. ISSUES On review, we address two issues: 1. Was there clear and convincing evidence to support the Committee's and Commission's findings of respondent's ethical misconduct? 2. Was the Commission's recommendation for a 30 day suspension and restitution of $500 an appropriate sanction in this case?