Court Opinion

ID: 9598017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:04:30.772612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:40.455377
License: Public Domain

Hunstein, Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the conclusion reached by the majority that the appropriate level of discipline in this case is a public reprimand and a six-month suspension. Trauffer admits that he violated Standard 12 by directing non-lawyer members of his staff to telephone lay people in order to solicit professional employment for him and violated Standard 26 by sharing the fees he collected with these non-lawyer staff members. This is not the first time Trauffer has been disciplined by the Court. See Order No. S00Y0280 (decided March 3, 2000) (accepting petition for voluntary discipline for admitted violations of Standards 31 (d) (1), 65 (A), and 65.2 (a) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d)). Because the allegations against Trauffer reflect serious disciplinary infractions which support the sanction of disbarment, I would reject Trauffer’s petition. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent to the majority’s imposition of a public reprimand and a six-month suspension in this case.
I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson joins in this dissent.
*501Jay I. Shreenath, for Trauffer.