Opinion ID: 4455121
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mitigation and Recommendations

Text: ¶22 The Trial Panel found the Respondent's acts of misconduct were similar to those of the attorney in Malloy who was suspended for nine months . However, it noted this case was also different in that the Respondent had also mismanaged client funds and made dishonest statements to Judge Ogden. The Trial Panel focused heavily on mitigating circumstances in coming to its recommendation for discipline. ¶23 The Respondent was suddenly thrust into private practice when his managing partner left the firm soon after the Respondent joined. He had no prior experience at managing a law office. Around the same time, the Respondent's wife contracted a debilitating illness which greatly hampered the Respondent's ability to manage the law office, take care of his wife and their five (5) children, three of which have special needs. His billable hours went dramatically down as did his income. He was unable to pay for MCLE and was unaware he could apply for financial assistance for MCLE through the Bar. Respondent testified he battled depression which hindered his ability to resolve his ethical responsibilities. The Trial Panel found it clear the Respondent had no specific intent to avoid his ethical obligation for personal gain or had disregard for the well-being of his clients. His intent appeared to be a desire to help his clients finish their litigation before he withdrew so they would not have the expense and delay of retaining new counsel. ¶24 Apart from his suspension and the grievances filed in this matter, the Respondent had no prior disciplinary issues. He was found to be very cooperative and forthcoming with the Bar investigators and showed remorse for his actions. He has participated in the Lawyers Helping Lawyers program and has received counseling, which has helped with his depression and anxiety. The Respondent is currently working for and being mentored by Mr. Sanger, his attorney representing him in this matter. ¶25 Considering all the mitigating factors, both the Trial Panel and the Complainant agreed the appropriate discipline would be to suspend the Respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year from the date he last engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, which occurred on December 19, 2017. We cannot agree with this recommendation. Although the Trial Panel found the Respondent was not motivated by self interest in continuing to represent his clients after his suspension, that is only part of the story. It cannot be said that his clients were not harmed by his actions. For example, in the Sunstate case, the court discovered the Respondent's suspension one day before trial commenced thus delaying the trial. A month later the court issued an order directing the Respondent's client to find new counsel within thirty-three (33) days, this was not done and a default judgment was entered against the Respondent's client. In Running we held the practice of law while suspended detrimentally affects a lawyer's ability to represent a client. Similar to the Sunstate case, a default judgment was granted against Running's client months after Running claimed he had discontinued representing that client. Even though he was no longer representing the client at the time of the default judgment, we held his failure to notify his client of his suspension detrimentally affected the client. 58 Although the record is unclear when the Respondent notified his client in the Sunstate case, it cannot be said no harm was done. The recommendation to retroactively apply a one-year suspension which has already expired does not provide adequate deterrence. We are mindful of the Respondent's mitigating circumstances and his efforts to get counseling and mentoring. This is the right course for him to take, but we cannot open the door to reinstatement at this time. ¶26 A lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists. 59 A willful disregard of a suspension order is a serious matter that will not be tolerated by this Court. Compliance with Rule 9.1, RGDP, is not optional. The Respondent willfully failed to comply with Rule 9.1, RGDP, including after he was notified of a grievance based upon that very rule. The Respondent's other misconduct is also disturbing, i.e., lack of candor to Judge Ogden and allowing his retainer fees to be paid to a non-lawyer.