Opinion ID: 2512380
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prior Disciplinary Offenses and Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law

Text: ¶ 34 Mr. Cramer argues that two of the aggravating factors are insignificant and should not cause the court to increase any of its presumptive sanctions. First, Mr. Cramer argues that his past disciplinary actions are remote. Second, Mr. Cramer acknowledges that he has practiced law for many years, but argues that this factor is insignificant.
¶ 35 Mr. Cramer has been disciplined on three prior occasions. In 1991, Mr. Cramer was found to have violated RPC 8.4(c) for conduct related to misrepresentation. In 1994, Mr. Cramer was found to have violated former RPC 1.14(a) (1991) for failing to maintain his client's funds in trust. Also in 1994, in a separate action, Mr. Cramer was censured for failing to ensure that a statutory warranty deed was recorded promptly. ¶ 36 Mr. Cramer argues that the past disciplinary actions are remote and unrelated to the allegations in this matter and should not be considered in determining the appropriate sanction. The only authority he cites for this conclusion is ABA Standards std. 9.32(m), which provides a mitigating factor for remoteness of prior offenses. The hearing officer did not find this mitigating factor. ¶ 37 Mr. Cramer does not cite any cases in which the court has overturned prior findings of past disciplinary actions because they were remote. Conversely, the WSBA cites multiple cases in which past disciplinary actions were allowed as an aggravating factor despite the fact that they occurred many years previous. See In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Greenlee, 158 Wash.2d 259, 276 n. 2, 143 P.3d 807 (2006); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against VanDerbeek, 153 Wash.2d 64, 94, 101 P.3d 88 (2004); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen, 150 Wash.2d 744, 761, 82 P.3d 224 (2004). Additionally, because the ABA Standards provide a mitigating factor for remoteness, there is no need to totally exclude prior disciplinary actions if they occurred in the distant past. The proper procedure would be for the hearing officer to also take into account the mitigating factor of remoteness. Mr. Cramer did not argue in his brief that the hearing officer should have found this mitigating factor. ¶ 38 The ABA Standards do not give any guidance as to how much time need pass before a violation is considered remote. Even if sufficient time had passed between the 1994 discipline and the conduct at issue, there was still sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer's recommended sanctions.
¶ 39 Mr. Cramer also admits that he has practiced law for many years but asserts that this factor is not significant and should not cause the court to increase any of its presumptive sanctions. Again, Mr. Cramer does not cite any authority for his conclusion. ABA Standards std. 9.22(i) permits an aggravating factor for substantial experience in the practice of law. Mr. Cramer has been licensed to practice law in the State of Washington since 1979. The hearing officer's finding of this factor is supported by substantial evidence.