Court Opinion

ID: 9580300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:03:50.777803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:11.706503
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
joined by BURKE, Justice,
dissenting.
Because the misappropriation of a client’s funds is not only stealing but a gross breach of trust, I think disbarment should almost always be imposed in such cases. “[Ojnly the most compelling mitigating circumstances” justify sanctions more lenient than disbarment where a lawyer converts client funds for his own use. Commentary, ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, § 4.11.
Mann committed his offense when he was severely depressed, a condition brought about at least in part by financial and family problems. Unfortunately, depression is a common malady. A review of the digests leads one to conclude that most attorneys who take their clients’ money are depressed. See, e.g., 4 Pacific Digest 2d, Attorney & Client, Key Number 58 (West 1990 & Supp.1992). In my view depression should not be regarded as a mitigating circumstance of sufficient strength to reduce the sanction for misappropriation from disbarment to suspension.
The most unique mitigating circumstance which is present in this case is the fact that Mann turned himself in a few weeks after his offense, at a time when no one knew he had committed it. While this is certainly commendable, it is nonetheless after the fact conduct which does not serve to explain or excuse the offense. To me, the dominant fact in this case is that Mann stole money belonging to his clients. The fact that he acted responsibly afterwards does not warrant a reduction in the usual sanction. Thus I would order Mann disbarred.