Court Opinion

ID: 9820529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 07:20:49.158294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:59:37.947936
License: Public Domain

CLARK, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
hi concur with the majority in that respondent was negligent in his supervision of his nonlawyer assistant and, thus, subject to some discipline, but disagree with the majority’s conclusion that he showed a willful indifference toward his obligation to make prompt restitution to his clients and third parties. I agree with the Hearing Committee, which serves as the eyes and ears of this Court, which found that respondent did not act knowingly in failing to make earlier restitution, because he did not know that either a client or third party had not been paid until such was revealed by a subsequent audit. For these reasons, I agree with the committee’s recommendation that the maximum discipline should be a public reprimand with probation.
Further, I disagree with the majority’s allocation to respondent the entire cost of the subsequent audit and audit report. These additional costs were in part necessitated by a change in the ODC’s internal auditor, which was beyond respondent’s control.