Court Opinion

ID: 9517330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:13:29.33063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:31.566792
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARD, specially concurring: I concur in the judgment of the majority that the respondent should be suspended, but I consider that the sanction imposed is not appropriate to serve the ends of the disciplinary process. This court has said that the first purpose of a disciplinary proceeding against a member of the bar is to safeguard the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession, and protect the administration of justice from reproach. Unwarranted lenity can be as injurious to the public interest and to the integrity of the profession as unwarranted severity. Considering the grave professional misconduct here I believe the suspension should have been for a period of not less than 3 years. Imposing sanctions is a melancholy business, but presiding over the professional disciplinary system is one of this court’s most important responsibilities. MR. JUSTICE UNDERWOOD joins in this special concurrence.