Court Opinion

ID: 9739067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:08:05.041984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:09.824159
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to express my concern over the issue of Disselhorst’s health problems which was a significant portion of his argument to this court. The findings of the Hearing Panel indicate that “health problems ... were mitigating circumstances in the misconduct.” Rule 1.3(C) of the Procedural Rules of Lawyer Disability and Discipline (NDPRLDD) which were effective September 1, 1988, provides: “Mitigating or aggravating circumstances which affect the nature or degree of discipline to be imposed in a matter shall be fully set forth in the opinion disposing of the matter.” If this court, in its written opinions, is to “fully set forth” the effect of mitigating circumstances on the discipline imposed it would be helpful if the recommendations of the Hearing Panel would also explain the extent to which the health problems were “mitigating circumstances in the misconduct.”
We know that health problems ordinarily do not entirely excuse the conduct of the attorney or shield the attorney from his or her professional responsibilities. Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Court v. Amundson, 297 N.W.2d 433 (N.D.1980). But mitigating circumstances may be considered in determining the nature or degree of discipline. Rule 1.3(C), NDPRLDD; In re Peterson, 175 N.W.2d 132 (N.D.1970). If we are to abide by the Rule and explain, in our opinions, how the mitigating circumstances affect the nature or degree of discipline vis *339a vis the recommendations of the Disciplinary Panel, then I believe the Panel must also explain in its recommendations to us how those circumstances affected its recommendation. It is perhaps impossible to measure precisely the effect those circumstances have on the recommendation. However, a statement that “health problems were ... mitigating circumstances in the misconduct” does not provide me with an acceptable explanation of the recommendation of the Panel. We should at least be informed whether or not the Panel would have recommended more severe discipline but for the illness, and, if so, to what extent, or whether or not it would have recommended the same discipline notwithstanding the illness and, if so, why.
Were the illness in this instance the major issue to be decided by this court, I would remand for further findings and recommendations by the Panel. But the majority opinion does no more nor no less than the Panel recommended insofar as the nature or degree of discipline to be imposed, i.e., the Panel recommended a public reprimand and the majority opinion imposes a public reprimand, although our reprimand is for negligent, not intentional, conduct, and we do not find conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Furthermore, as the majority opinion observes in a footnote, the record is somewhat vague, at least from the standpoint of expert medical testimony, as to the time of the onset of the illness and its actual effect on Disselhorst at the time of the misconduct. I therefore concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.
MESCHKE, J., concurs.