Court Opinion

ID: 9595382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:39:38.534912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:35.978200
License: Public Domain

Justice VOLLACK
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to suspend the respondent for a *1097period of six months from the practice of law. In my opinion a longer period of suspension is warranted by the respondent’s professional experience, the knowing and intentional character of respondent’s conduct, and the financial benefit the respondent enjoyed as a result of his unethical conduct.
This disciplinary proceeding was filed as a result of the respondent’s professional conduct as personal representative of the estate of Alice Rounds.
The respondent stipulated in the disciplinary proceedings that while handling the estate he:
(1) delayed the closing of the estate;
(2) overpaid himself;
(3) failed to properly arrange for ancillary proceedings;
(4) failed to place funds into interest-bearing accounts;
(5) failed to timely file tax returns resulting in injury to the estate; and
(6) paid himself for services the estate did not require as a probate function.
The respondent further admitted that his conduct caused damage to the estate in the amount of at least $13,000.
The respondent asserted mental illness (depression) as a defense to his misconduct. The hearing board held a separate hearing on the respondent’s mental illness. After the evidentiary hearing, the board found that the respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, but that the respondent had established by clear and convincing evidence that the neglect was a result of his depression. The board further found that the depression did not cause him to overpay himself or perform unnecessary services, and that the respondent’s conduct was in violation of DR 2-106(A)1 and DR 1-102(A)(1).2
The American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986) [hereinafter ABA Standards'] provides in Standard 7.2 that “[suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system” (respondent engaged in pattern of charging excessive or improper fees, conduct covered by this standard).
In arriving at appropriate discipline it is necessary to consider the unethical conduct and any aggravating or mitigating factors. The respondent’s conduct, in overpaying himself and paying himself for unnecessary services, is a serious abuse of a position of trust as an attorney and as a personal representative, causing significant injury to the client over a period of eight years. Respondent, after disclosure of his misconduct, has to date avoided making restitution by seeking protection of the bankruptcy laws. I would find aggravating circumstances in addition to those found by the majority (maj. at 1095) — that the respondent had a selfish motive, ABA Standards 9.22(b), and an indifference to making restitution, ABA Standards 9.22(j).
I disagree with the weight placed by the majority on respondent’s mental disabilities as mitigation since the hearing board found the respondent’s mental illness was a defense to respondent’s neglectful conduct and not to his misconduct in charging excessive fees. The action of the respondent in seeking to avoid payment of the probate court judgment by filing for bankruptcy does not, in my opinion, constitute mitigation under ABA Standards 9.32(k) (imposition of other penalties or sanctions) (maj. at 1095-96), but rather, aggravation. The respondent’s conduct is a serious violation of his duty to the profession and the public. I cannot agree that six months’ suspension is appropriate in this case. Such discipline would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct and subse*1098quent action in the eyes of both the public and the legal profession.
I am authorized to say that Justice ERICKSON and Justice QUINN join in this dissent.

. DR 2-106 Fees for Legal Services.
(A) A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee.

. DR 1-102 Misconduct.
(A) A lawyer shall not:
(1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule.