Court Opinion

ID: 9848060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:12:13.794594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:58.269473
License: Public Domain

OAKS, Justice:
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result reached by the Court, but cannot concur in all portions of its opinion.
*441Count I of the complaint filed by the Ethics and Disciplinary Committee charged and the Board of Bar Commissioners found, inter alia, that appellant prepared findings, judgments, and orders and had them signed by the judge without discussing their contents with or providing copies to opposing counsel. The Bar Commissioners found that this conduct violated District Court Rule 2.9(b) and the common practice and courtesy among attorneys in the community. Appellant was further found to have knowingly and willfully prepared an order containing terms substantially different from those ordered by the court and then to have distributed copies of the order to members of the Utah Supreme Court during oral argument, although the order was then subject to opposing counsel’s objection and was not a part of the record on appeal. As a result of the conduct charged under Count I, the Bar Commissioners found that appellant had violated Canon 1, DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6); and Canon 7, DR 7-102(A)(5) and DR 7-106(C)(5) and (7).1 In contrast to the Court’s opinion, which excuses or at least does not censure this conduct, I would sustain the Bar Commissioners’ findings and conclusions under Count I.
Under Count II of the complaint, the Bar Commissioners found that appellant, in a motion for an order to show cause and later in a court hearing, made a statement that was false and known by appellant to be false when he made it. As noted in the Court’s opinion, this finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record. I agree with the Bar Commissioners’ conclusion that appellant’s conduct under Count II violated Canon 1, DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6); and Canon 7, DR 7-102(A)(5). I am unable to concur in the Bar Commissioners’ conclusion that this conduct also violated Canon 7, DR 7-102(A)(l) and (4) and DR 7-106(C)(2), but in view of the gravity of the other violations, I do not consider that exception to undercut the Bar Commissioners’ disciplinary recommendation.
Under Count IV, with one exception,2 I concur in the Court’s opinion that the findings of the Board of Bar Commissioners are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and I concur that appellant’s conduct described there violated the following canons and disciplinary rules: Canon 1, DR 1-102(AX5) and (6); Canon 7, DR 7-106(C)(7) and DR 7-110(B)(2) and (3).
On the basis of findings under Counts I, II and IV of the Ethics and Disciplinary Committee’s complaint, I join with the Court in its decision to suspend the appellant from the practice of law for a period of two months, as the Board of Bar Commissioners recommended.
APPENDIX
DR 1-102 Misconduct.
(A) A lawyer shall not:
******
(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
(5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.
DR 7-102 Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.
(A) In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:
(1) File a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of his client when he knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.
******
(4) Knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence.
*442(5) Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact.
DR 7-106 Trial Conduct.

(C) In appearing in his professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not:
⅜ ⅜ * * * *
(2) Ask any question that he has no reasonable basis to believe is relevant to the case and that is intended to degrade a witness or other person.
⅝: s{s ⅝ sfc ⅜ *
(5) Fail to comply with known local customs of courtesy or practice of the bar or a particular tribunal without giving to opposing counsel timely notice of his intent not to comply.

(7) Intentionally or habitually violate any established rule of procedure or of evidence.
DR 7-110 Contact with Officials.

(B) In an adversary proceeding, a lawyer shall not communicate, or cause another to communicate, as to the merits of the cause with a judge or an official before whom the proceeding is pending, except:
* * * * * *
(2) In writing if he promptly delivers a copy of the writing to opposing counsel or to the adverse party if he is not represented by a lawyer.
(3) Orally upon adequate notice to opposing counsel or to the adverse party if he is not represented by a lawyer.
STEWART, J., does not participate herein.
HOWE, J., having disqualified himself, does not participate herein.
CROFT, District Judge, sat.

. The Disciplinary Rules (DR) cited herein appear in the Appendix at the conclusion of this opinion.

. I cannot concur in the finding that appellant’s conduct violated DR 7-102(A)(l), since I can find no evidence in the record that he took any action that served “merely to harass or maliciously injure another.” (Emphasis added.)