Opinion ID: 2582685
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prong Three: aggravating and mitigating circumstances

Text: The ABA Standards recognize eleven aggravating factors. [21] The hearing committee found two aggravators: prior disciplinary offenses and a pattern of misconduct. It noted that Ford does have a recurrent record of disciplinary actions, including 3 recent matters within less than 10 years and that Ford had previously been admonished for violating a court order. Ford's substantial experience in the practice of law is an additional aggravator. [22] The hearing committee found two mitigating factors out of the thirteen recognized by the ABA Standards. [23] The committee found that Ford did not act with a dishonest or selfish motive and promptly disclosed his conduct and fully cooperated with the ensuing proceedings. There is no `magic formula' for determining how aggravating and mitigating circumstances affect an otherwise appropriate sanction. [24] Indeed, `[e]ach case presents different circumstances which must be weighed against the nature and gravity of the lawyer's misconduct.' [25] As we noted above, we are guided but not constrained by the [ABA Standards] and by the sanctions imposed in comparable disciplinary proceedings. [26] The ABA Standards recommend that [g]enerally, suspension should be for a period of time equal to or greater than six months. [27] But this court has in some cases imposed suspensions for less than six months. We ordered ninety-day suspensions in Burrell v. Disciplinary Board of the Alaska Bar Ass'n, [28] in In re West, [29] and in In re Triem. [30]