Court Opinion

ID: 9633366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:44:39.371868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:11.429901
License: Public Domain

Hamilton, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the suspension but not the length thereof.
This matter and In re Yates, 78 Wn.2d 243, 473 P.2d 402 (1970), were argued before this court on the same day. Inexcusable delay and procrastination constituted the underlying basis of the disciplinary proceedings in each matter. Although each proceeding deserves to be judged upon its own circumstances, and total consistency may be “the hobgoblin of little minds”; nevertheless, it is my view that some measure of consistency in the imposition of suspensions from the practice of law is desirable where the tap root of the cause is virtually identical. Because of this and because of the fact that the acropetal offshoots from the delay and procrastination, i.e., undue problems for the clients and embarrassment to the profession, were similar in both cases, I would impose the same suspension in each case — 45 days.
Roselllnt and Sharp, JJ., and Donworth, J. Pro Tern., concur with Hamilton, J.