Court Opinion

ID: 9837444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:38:42.380132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:26.733983
License: Public Domain

CRICHTON, J.,
dissents in part and assigns reasons.
Ini would impose permanent disbarment under the particular circumstances of this case. Respondent failed to answer the ODC’s recent charges, failed to file a response for the hearing committee’s consideration, failed to file a brief in response to this Court’s briefing notice, and failed to appear at this Court’s oral argument.
Further, Respondent recently claimed, in a motion to this Court, that he did not receive notice of this matter. This unsupported claim is contradicted by the actual evidence in the record. The disciplinary board’s records indicate that notice was sent to Respondent at three separate addresses, and all were returned as either unclaimed or not deliverable. After these attempts, the ODC sent Respondent an email and ultimately made contact with him by telephone to advise him of the attempts to serve him with notice of the formal charges. Further, when the disciplinary board sent notice of the formal charges to Respondent by certified mail, the board received the signed return card from his address.
In my view, Respondent’s evident lack of interest in defending these serious charges against him, coupled with his past sanctions, has no place in this noble px-o-fession. I therefore respectfully disagree with the majority’s imposition of disbarment, and would instead permanently disbar Respondent.