Court Opinion

ID: 9545628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:16:26.322744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:14.317738
License: Public Domain

*537CORCORAN, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. We have before us a criminally insane lawyer who for personal gain knowingly and creatively stole substantial sums from his client and fraudulently billed for expenses.
To protect the public, to retain whatever confidence the public and Bar have in Bar disciplinary proceedings, and to foster professional integrity in the Bar, respondent should be disbarred.
ROLL, Judge of the Court of Appeals, concurring with Justice CORCORAN’s dissent and separately dissenting.
Between January and June, 1984, by his own admission, attorney Charles R. Hoover misappropriated in excess of $61,000. The thefts were made possible by the making of false entries in his law firm’s timekeeping system and by disguising his personal expenses as business costs. Hoover maintains that he was psychotic during this period of time. Hoover was not prosecuted for the misappropriation.
Psychiatric testimony in support of Hoover’s claim indicated that he suffered from a bipolar disorder.10 This condition, previously referred to by the American Psychiatric Association as a manic-depressive disorder, was atypical because Hoover only suffered from manic and not depressive cycles.
While Hoover was allegedly psychotic, he was engaged in complicated contract negotiations on behalf of the client his law firm was representing. Although conflicting evidence from lay witnesses existed, some lay witnesses testified that Hoover demonstrated no unusual or bizarre behavior during the time frame in which the misappropriation occurred. Accordingly, I believe that the evidence that Hoover was psychotic is far from persuasive.
The supreme court is the ultimate trier of law and fact in a determination regarding the appropriate discipline to be accorded an attorney who has engaged in misconduct. In re Douglas, 158 Ariz. 516, 517, 764 P.2d 1, 2 (1988); In re Kleindienst, 132 Ariz. 95, 99, 644 P.2d 249, 253 (1982). There is precedent for disbarment as a sanction for the misappropriation of a client’s funds. In re Davis, 129 Ariz. 1, 4, 628 P.2d 38, 41 (1981) (attorney misappropriated $5,600); In re Moore, 110 Ariz. 312, 315, 518 P.2d 562, 565 (1974) ($71,000 diverted and commingled); In re Campbell, 108 Ariz. 200, 495 P.2d 131 (1972) (attorney misappropriated $4,500).
I agree with Justice Corcoran that public confidence in the State Bar of Arizona requires that Charles Hoover be disbarred. I also believe that his disbarment is required in order to fortify the perception of members of the bar that discipline is imposed in an even-handed and equitable fashion regardless of the stature of the attorney.
For the above-stated reasons, I believe that disbarment is appropriate.

. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders at 225 (3d ed. revised 1987).