Court Opinion

ID: 9624819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:18:39.448513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:55.171499
License: Public Domain

Dolliver, J.
(dissenting) — The majority overturns a unanimous ruling of the Disciplinary Board that Mr. Felice only be censured by adding to the sanction of censure a 30-day suspension from the practice of law.
*529In In re Noble, 100 Wn.2d 88, 95, 667 P.2d 608 (1983), we stated: "[W]e will adopt the sanction recommended by the Disciplinary Board unless we are able to articulate specific reasons for adopting a different sanction." Although not cited, this salutary rule, until now the law, which gives both credence and deference to the Disciplinary Board, is ignored and surely overruled sub silentio (see In re Selden, 107 Wn.2d 246, 256, 728 P.2d 1036 (1986) (Dore, J., concurring)) by the majority without even a recognition that it has done so.
Having abandoned the rule, the majority does no more than give a glancing reference to the order of the Disciplinary Board. This simply fails to meet the requirements of Noble. Even if the opinion of the majority prevails, Mr. Felice deserves better treatment than this from the highest court in the state.
I find nothing in the Noble standards or in their application to this case which persuades me that the unanimous recommendation of a board, whose members include a broad cross section of the bar as well as lay members which modified the ruling of the hearing officer, should be overturned. I would adopt the opinion and sanction of the Disciplinary Board and impose censure on Mr. Felice.
Pearson, J., concurs with Dolliver, J.